Assistive technology profits

Disability has been transformed into a premium market where companies sell basic human functionality back to disabled people at maximum markup. The assistive technology industry extracts profit from biological difference, turning accessibility into a luxury good.

──── The disability tax structure

Assistive technology operates on a “disability tax” model where disabled people pay exponentially more for basic functionality:

A standard computer mouse costs $20. An eye-tracking mouse for paralyzed users costs $15,000. The technology is similar; the price multiplier is 750x because the customer has no alternative.

Screen readers that convert text to speech cost $1,000+ when text-to-speech technology is free on every smartphone. Braille displays cost $3,000-$15,000 when the underlying technology is standard electronics with tactile feedback.

Wheelchair-accessible vehicles carry a $25,000-$80,000 premium over standard vehicles for modifications that cost a fraction of that to implement.

The industry has successfully positioned basic accessibility as premium features rather than fundamental rights.

──── Captive market exploitation

Disabled people represent the perfect captive market: they cannot choose to not need the technology, cannot substitute with cheaper alternatives, and often cannot delay purchases.

Hearing aids cost $1,000-$6,000 per pair despite using technology similar to wireless earbuds that cost $50. The industry maintains artificial scarcity through regulatory capture and proprietary lock-in.

Insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors turn Type 1 diabetes into a subscription revenue model where basic life maintenance generates recurring monthly fees.

Communication devices for non-speaking individuals cost $8,000-$15,000 for tablets with specialized software that could run on standard devices costing $200.

──── Insurance arbitrage profits

The assistive technology industry has mastered insurance arbitrage, charging insurance systems prices that individuals could never afford:

Prosthetic limbs cost $15,000-$50,000 when insurance pays, but companies offer cash discounts of 70-80%, revealing their true cost structure.

Hospital beds with positioning capabilities cost $15,000-$30,000 when billed to insurance, despite being manufactured for under $2,000.

Mobility scooters carry 500-1000% markups when sold through medical equipment dealers compared to similar devices sold as consumer products.

The companies extract maximum value from insurance reimbursement systems while maintaining the fiction that these prices reflect actual costs.

──── Planned obsolescence for survival

Unlike consumer electronics, assistive technology failures can be life-threatening, yet companies deliberately build in obsolescence:

Wheelchair parts are designed to fail and are priced as expensive replacements rather than durable components. A wheelchair tire costs $200 when a functionally identical bicycle tire costs $30.

Medical device software requires expensive annual licenses and becomes incompatible with newer systems, forcing costly upgrades for devices that should last decades.

Proprietary charging systems and non-standard components ensure that users must purchase expensive replacements rather than using standard alternatives.

──── Regulatory capture maintenance

The assistive technology industry maintains high prices through regulatory capture that creates artificial barriers to competition:

FDA medical device classifications are manipulated to require expensive approval processes for simple technologies, preventing low-cost competitors from entering the market.

Insurance reimbursement codes are structured to favor established companies and exclude innovative low-cost solutions.

Professional fitting requirements create artificial scarcity by requiring expensive specialist involvement for devices that users could manage independently.

──── Innovation suppression economics

The industry actively suppresses innovations that would reduce costs or increase user independence:

Open-source assistive technology developments get acquired and discontinued to prevent market disruption.

3D printing solutions for prosthetics and adaptive devices face patent litigation from companies protecting their high-margin markets.

Smartphone apps that provide assistive functionality get acquired by medical device companies and either shut down or converted to expensive medical devices.

──── Means-testing as market segmentation

The industry uses disability benefit systems to segment markets and extract maximum value from different economic classes:

Premium models target private insurance and wealthy individuals with luxury features and high margins.

“Basic” models target government programs with inflated prices that still generate substantial profits while appearing cost-conscious.

Refurbished equipment programs create artificial scarcity by limiting availability and maintaining high prices even for used devices.

──── Emotional manipulation marketing

Assistive technology marketing exploits the emotional vulnerability of disabled people and their families:

“Independence” rhetoric frames expensive purchases as investments in dignity rather than acknowledging they should be basic rights.

“Cutting-edge” technology claims justify premium pricing for incremental improvements over much cheaper alternatives.

Success stories and inspiration narratives deflect from price criticism by making cost objections seem like questioning disabled people’s worth.

──── Family wealth extraction

The industry extracts wealth from entire family networks, not just disabled individuals:

Fundraising campaigns for expensive assistive technology normalize the idea that families should bankrupt themselves for basic accessibility.

Extended payment plans trap families in long-term debt for devices that depreciate rapidly.

Insurance gaps force families to choose between financial stability and their disabled family member’s needs.

──── Geographic price discrimination

Companies charge different prices in different markets based on local economic conditions and regulatory environments:

Developing countries often get access to simplified, low-cost versions that prove the technology could be affordable everywhere.

European markets with stronger regulations sometimes force lower prices that companies claim would be impossible in the US.

Bulk purchasing by institutions reveals dramatically lower actual costs that individual consumers cannot access.

──── Professional gatekeeping revenue

The industry creates artificial professional gatekeeping that generates additional revenue streams:

Occupational therapists must certify assistive technology needs, creating delays and additional costs.

Specialized vendors require expensive training to sell and service devices, limiting competition.

Insurance approval processes require professional advocacy that disabled people must pay for privately.

──── Technology convergence resistance

As mainstream technology becomes more accessible, the assistive technology industry resists convergence that would eliminate their price premiums:

Smartphone accessibility features provide functionality comparable to devices costing thousands, but the industry lobbies against insurance coverage for smartphones.

Voice control and gesture recognition in consumer devices could replace expensive specialized interfaces, but assistive technology companies create proprietary alternatives instead.

AI and machine learning could automate many assistive functions, but the industry focuses on expensive, specialized implementations rather than leveraging existing platforms.

──── The value measurement problem

How do we value human functionality against corporate profits? How do we weigh accessibility against shareholder returns? How do we compare basic human dignity to market sustainability?

The assistive technology industry has resolved this by treating human functionality as a commodity to be sold rather than a right to be protected.

──── Alternative value frameworks

A system optimized for accessibility rather than profit would look fundamentally different:

Open-source design standards would enable low-cost manufacturing and user customization.

Public research and development would focus on durability and affordability rather than market segmentation.

Universal design principles would build accessibility into all technology rather than creating specialized expensive alternatives.

────────────────────────────────────────

The assistive technology industry represents capitalism’s most direct extraction of profit from human vulnerability. It transforms biological difference into market opportunity, selling basic human functionality at premium prices to people who have no choice but to pay.

The industry doesn’t just profit from disability—it actively maintains disability as a source of revenue by preventing the accessibility integration that would eliminate their market.

This reveals the fundamental contradiction between market logic and human rights: when basic human functionality becomes a commodity, market forces optimize for scarcity and high prices rather than universal access and affordability.

The question isn’t whether assistive technology should exist, but whether basic human functionality should be a source of corporate profit or a guaranteed right.