Apple in talks to put Apple Watch into the hands of Medicare users

We got my mom (now 84) an iPhone several years ago because it was so much easier to use than her flip phone. At least she can read a text message, but she has trouble responding to one and will routinely do things like send an e-mail with the entire message in the subject line and think it’s a text message. I seriously doubt she could figure out an Apple Watch, no matter how easy it is. My dad on the other hand has no problems with his iphone. I don’t know what the numbers are, but in that age group, there is a significant number of people more like my mom. 

I applaud Apple for pushing their medical venture but dealing with insurers is not the way to do it. Deal directly with seniors (having trouble calling myself a senior but time flies when you're having fun), bypassing the corrupt insurers in this country, is a more progressive way to go. Insurers aren't going to pay for the Apple Watch, they're going to figure out a way to make the customer pay for them. I'm on Medicare (Parts A, B, and D) and have medical gap coverage through a Blue Shield company. My 40 years of paying into Medicare take care of the majority of my medical bills, which, luckily, have been very few and small. I'd rather not have to pay the Blue Shield premium and, so far, I've paid more premiums than I've received in coverage. I don't wear a watch since I retired but would if Medicare had a web portal that used a combination of Apple software and software from others to monitor my health. I'm tired of filling out the same patient information when seeing a different doctor. I want all my patient information either on my phone (backed up by Apple? in a secure partition outside the access by the FBI and others) or on a secure Medicare website. I'd rather see my taxes go towards enhancing the US government computer systems than a wide variety of other government expenditures. I want a healthy country, not a country of sick people who can't get the medical attention they need.

MplsP said:

We got my mom (now 84) an iPhone several years ago because it was so much easier to use than her flip phone. At least she can read a text message, but she has trouble responding to one and will routinely do things like send an e-mail with the entire message in the subject line and think it’s a text message. I seriously doubt she could figure out an Apple Watch, no matter how easy it is. My dad on the other hand has no problems with his iphone. I don’t know what the numbers are, but in that age group, there is a significant number of people more like my mom. 

 That's both sad and, typically, unnecessary.

The insurance company I work for has plans in the market where the cost of the Watch is subsidized. Unfortunately they don’t offer it to their employees yet. https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/newsroom/2018/2018-11-15-apple-watch-uhc-wearable.html

rob53 said:

I applaud Apple for pushing their medical venture but dealing with insurers is not the way to do it. Deal directly with seniors (having trouble calling myself a senior but time flies when you're having fun), bypassing the corrupt insurers in this country, is a more progressive way to go. Insurers aren't going to pay for the Apple Watch, they're going to figure out a way to make the customer pay for them. I'm on Medicare (Parts A, B, and D) and have medical gap coverage through a Blue Shield company. My 40 years of paying into Medicare take care of the majority of my medical bills, which, luckily, have been very few and small. I'd rather not have to pay the Blue Shield premium and, so far, I've paid more premiums than I've received in coverage. I don't wear a watch since I retired but would if Medicare had a web portal that used a combination of Apple software and software from others to monitor my health. I'm tired of filling out the same patient information when seeing a different doctor. I want all my patient information either on my phone (backed up by Apple? in a secure partition outside the access by the FBI and others) or on a secure Medicare website. I'd rather see my taxes go towards enhancing the US government computer systems than a wide variety of other government expenditures. I want a healthy country, not a country of sick people who can't get the medical attention they need.

I think that is a very misguided approach:
1)   Bypassing the healthcare system (of which insurers are a part) leaves them off the hook.   Basically, the health care system says:  "We will manage your diseases, but promoting your health is strictly YOUR responsibility."   The net effect is:  We pay our healthcare system  $3.5 Trillion a year (5 times the defense budget)..  And 75% of that goes to treat the cumulative effects of unhealthy lifestyles.  That is:  our healthcare system has a nice racket going:   They refuse to give anymore than lip service to disease prevention* and make hundreds of billions treating the effects of the diseases caused by those unhealthy lifestyles.

(* Our healthcare system calls early detection (like PSA tests) "Prevention".  They aren't.  They are simply early detection enabling earlier treatment.   True prevention can only be done with a healthy lifestyle.)

2)  Collecting all of your medical history from healthcare providers and spreading it around carries the assumption that that information is accurate.   Seldom is that true.  More likely it contains a raft of diagnosis that were made to diagnose a condition or to justify and insurance payment -- or simply because the physician was wrong.