Advocates say it is discrimination and are arguing for "insurance fairness" on the grounds that people who have joints surgically replaced typically don't face the same kinds of coverage challenges.
That's not what it said. If you read through the entire article, you find statistics about how many people can't get prosthetics at all because they aren't considered necessary or they can't afford the co-payment or they have to take out a loan.
But even if what you said were the focus, that would be equally messed up. The article opens with the story of a man who got his artificial leg replaced for many years and only recently did they try to reject the hardware that he needs, the hardware that his doctor prescribes... What kind of screwy bait and switch shit would that be? Your insurance company should not be deciding how you live.
User fees are cruel barriers to proper healthcare. We see it even in some parts of Canada (healthcare in Canada isn't uniform, region-to-region, as it was relegated to provinces to define so the cruel conservatives couldn't unilaterally kill it, and so they just gut their own region's support to the bare letter of the law and thus implement user fees and premiums).
Practicing prosthetist for about 15 years now. The fights we have with insurance for coverage get worse every year while copays and deductibles continue to increase.
At least in the case of the hand in the article they likely hit denials on a multi articulating hand, claiming it's not necessary over a simple open-close hand. I fight that fight every day and it's absolutely BS to limit access to these types of hands or myoelectric devices in general just because they're more expensive than an old school body powered hook.
Ask anyone in healthcare and they'll tell you something has to change. The system does not work for the majority of working people.