On a recent episode of PBS News Weekend, journalist Ali Rogin spoke with Michelle Andrews, a seasoned contributor to KFF Health News, about a pressing issue affecting thousands of Americans living with limb loss: the troubling and often confusing limits of insurance coverage for prosthetic limbs. Their conversation dove into what many amputees describe as a deep and unfair contradiction in the healthcare system—one that treats artificial limbs more like optional accessories than life-restoring necessities.
As Andrews explains, someone needing a surgical knee replacement can generally count on it being covered by insurance. But if that same person needs a prosthetic knee following an amputation, they may face a very different experience. Many insurance providers place tight restrictions on prosthetic coverage, often imposing cost caps that limit how much they’ll pay—regardless of the device’s functionality, quality, or the patient’s lifestyle needs. Worse still, amputees are frequently required to prove that a prosthetic limb is “medically necessary,” a process that can involve endless documentation, frustrating delays, and in some cases, outright denials.
Andrews uncovered these systemic shortcomings in her recent investigative piece, “Health Insurers Limit Coverage of Prosthetic Limbs, Questioning Their Medical Need.” Her reporting sheds light on how policies that are supposed to support rehabilitation can, instead, leave people feeling sidelined and burdened with extra emotional, financial, and physical strain.
For many living with limb loss, prosthetics aren’t a luxury—they are essential tools for walking, working, caring for family, and living with dignity. And yet, under current insurance frameworks, they are often categorized alongside items that are treated as optional. This coverage gap raises serious questions about equity, accessibility, and how the healthcare system prioritizes certain medical interventions over others.
The conversation between Rogin and Andrews explores not just the bureaucratic hurdles, but the real human impact—how individuals striving for independence are too often left waiting, fighting, or paying out of pocket for the devices that help them reclaim their lives.