Needless to say, the choice also depends on what a person wants the device to do, on what he/she can still do or would like to do again. The most technologically advanced assistive device might actually not be the one that is the best fit for the patient. However, Werner believes it's a positive trend that users "insist on improved quality of life and more individuality from us technicians and are prepared to fight with their healthcare payers to get their needs met."
Unfortunately, this does not fix the general problem that it is ultimately not the technicians who get to decide what the best device is for their patients, but the healthcare payers. "We would love to incorporate stylish, modern, and digital facets. But that's not always feasible in our industry," says Felix Raab. Peter Fröhlingsdorf, CEO of Mecuris agrees. His assessment: "Healthcare facilities are definitely able to keep up with the pace of innovation. Many more innovative and, above all, individual fittings would be possible, but they systematically get rejected by the payers." This has especially dire consequences for children and adolescents. As they grow and develop, so does their need for personalized assistive devices. Yet far too often, parents are forced to fight insurance companies to cover the costs of these treatments, which unnecessarily delays much needed provision of care. Fröhlingsdorf calls this a fatal system error. After all, besides family members, you have specialty doctors, therapists/nursing staff and technicians who are involved in the care decision. They jointly choose the assistive device that can ideally compensate for the disability or best suits the patient. "It would be only right that the group of professionals who contribute to your care and treatment as a patient has the decision-making power to choose the type and design of the assistive technology," explains the Mecuris CEO.
Yet apart from the issue of assumption of cost, not everything that is technologically feasible in orthopedic technology can also be adapted. Everyone has their own unique physiognomy, character, and special case. "Our profession isn't privy to all that is modern, hip and cool until years later," says Felix Raab. Take 3D printing, for example. Other industries are far more developed and further ahead than the latest orthopedic technology applications. "That's because we have to break everything down since there are simply too many parameters that play a role in our field, which presently makes things very difficult to evaluate from a technical perspective."