Apple Watch Series 4 is first consumer device to receive FDA clearance for ECG monitoring ...

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 69
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    Soli said:
    mpw_amherst said:
    I can’t see why any of us would need or want to regularly have an ECG, especially if it is one less useful and informative than a 12 lead reading.
    Who does periodic 12-lead EKG checks at home? I certainly don't, so if this is just 30 seconds from my Watch I will be more likely to do it. If that tells me that I then need to see a doctor and the doctor then does a more extensive EKG then I don't see a downside. 

    This sounds like people saying that the iPhone camera isn't as good as this or that DSLR with a bulky size and removable lenses all with a huge cost. As they say, the best camera is the one you have with you, so why wouldn't the best EKG be the one you have with you (which in no way states that if you're at a doctor's office that you shouldn't use a more accurate device).
    Well quite. But this is also my point. Who does, or more importantly needs, regular ECGs? The answer: no one. If you have AF then you’ll be alerted by several obvious symptoms anyway. And it’s unclear that this will provide an ECG with any more useful data of function than scanning for AF. I just don’t see this as having much real world use beyond a gimmick. As mentioned elsewhere, oxygen sats, glucose levels - would be far more useful. 
    Does the average person need regular heart rate monitoring? Apparently not since it wasn't common on CE until the Apple Watch and yet there have been many lives saved because of it, including people on this forum, so I'm not sure what you're getting at by saying that AFib detection won't help save a single life.

    edit: Note that the presenter specifically refers to a "Lead-1 ECG." If that's such a pointless test then why are there so many single-lead EKG medical devices on the market? Do you think Apple paid off cardiologist Ivor Benjamin with what you seem to think is a bogus medical device?


    edited September 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 42 of 69
    Soli said:
    I want to learn more about this.
    Medical ECGs all use 12 leads to get a full read out -- and from that the physician can tell an unbelievable amount of information -- even if you've had a heart attack in the past.   The information goes far beyond a simple arrhythmia.

    I was under the impression that a single lead EKG could only measure heart rate (and if precise enough, it's rhythm).   And, that is precisely what the "old" chest straps that runners and cyclists used did.   They were single lead EKGs.

    But, here Apple was implying without saying explicitly that this provided a full boat EKG -- and their picture of an EKG readout certainly made it look so.  And I trust Apple to not bamboozle us.

    So, I'm looking forward to additional information and clarity.  What I saw in the Apple presentation did not jibe well with what I learned (and mostly forgot) about EKGs.
    If it's a physical impossibility to get "a full read out" without using 12 leads then I have to assume that's not "a full read out." So, did you infer that or did Apple imply that it's something that it's not? I'll have to revisit the event to know for sure, but I have to assume that on something like this and with FDA approval that they aren't going to lie.
    I'm not saying that anybody lied.
    A single lead EKG is still, technically, an EKG.  It just doesn't provide the full boatload of information a trained professional can glean from a 12 lead EKG.  And it is never used in a medical setting.  The only time I know of it being used is on the old chest straps that runners and cyclists used before watches to monitor their heart rate. 

    But, the way it was presented as "an EKG" implied the regular medical grade EKG.
    That's why I am anxious to hear more detail about this.
  • Reply 43 of 69
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,305member
    Soli said:
    mpw_amherst said:
    I can’t see why any of us would need or want to regularly have an ECG, especially if it is one less useful and informative than a 12 lead reading.
    Who does periodic 12-lead EKG checks at home? I certainly don't, so if this is just 30 seconds from my Watch I will be more likely to do it. If that tells me that I then need to see a doctor and the doctor then does a more extensive EKG then I don't see a downside. 

    This sounds like people saying that the iPhone camera isn't as good as this or that DSLR with a bulky size and removable lenses all with a huge cost. As they say, the best camera is the one you have with you, so why wouldn't the best EKG be the one you have with you (which in no way states that if you're at a doctor's office that you shouldn't use a more accurate device).
    Well quite. But this is also my point. Who does, or more importantly needs, regular ECGs? The answer: no one. If you have AF then you’ll be alerted by several obvious symptoms anyway. And it’s unclear that this will provide an ECG with any more useful data of function than scanning for AF. I just don’t see this as having much real world use beyond a gimmick. As mentioned elsewhere, oxygen sats, glucose levels - would be far more useful. 
    A number of people’s lives have been saved because of the heart rate monitor.  Who knows how many peoples lives could be saved by this?  Maybe it’s a kid who wouldn’t normally get this kind of test and bam, the Apple finds a possible issue.  You see the doctor and get a full test. Find out there was a real issue.  Life saved!!!  How is that a bad thing?  If the FDA approved it, it has to do a good job.  They don’t just pass any old thing.  If anything, they’re overly protective.   I’m actually shocked Apple got it approved.  I’ve almost positive Apple has been working to this step for a number of years. 

    SpamSandwichwatto_cobra
  • Reply 44 of 69
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    mpw_amherst said:
    I can’t see why any of us would need or want to regularly have an ECG, especially if it is one less useful and informative than a 12 lead reading.
    Who does periodic 12-lead EKG checks at home? I certainly don't, so if this is just 30 seconds from my Watch I will be more likely to do it. If that tells me that I then need to see a doctor and the doctor then does a more extensive EKG then I don't see a downside. 

    This sounds like people saying that the iPhone camera isn't as good as this or that DSLR with a bulky size and removable lenses all with a huge cost. As they say, the best camera is the one you have with you, so why wouldn't the best EKG be the one you have with you (which in no way states that if you're at a doctor's office that you shouldn't use a more accurate device).
    Well quite. But this is also my point. Who does, or more importantly needs, regular ECGs? The answer: no one. If you have AF then you’ll be alerted by several obvious symptoms anyway. And it’s unclear that this will provide an ECG with any more useful data of function than scanning for AF. I just don’t see this as having much real world use beyond a gimmick. As mentioned elsewhere, oxygen sats, glucose levels - would be far more useful. 
    Does the average person need regular heart rate monitoring? Apparently not since it wasn't common on CE until the Apple Watch and yet there have been many lives saved because of it, including people on this forum, so I'm not sure what you're getting at by saying that AFib detection won't help save a single life.
    Well I never said it wouldn’t save a single life, did I, just that I don’t see how much real world application it will have. I find a HR monitor very useful as I have an ongoing immune issue that means I get very sick but often without a fever. HR and sats often indicate if I have a serious infection. Being able to check my HR is clearly a benefit. If I were able to check my sats that would be useful as others have said of glucose. Clearly the ecg function will save some lives but getting people to see their doc with an undiagnosed AF. However, it could prompt loads of people to go to a GP with no symptoms and no need for concern, depending on the accuracy and their own understanding. I am also sceptical because there is little point in repeatedly taking an ECG. An ECG might tell you of an underlying heart condition but that is not something an individual needs to be testing every time they’re at the gym or sat on the sofa. It’s also not clear how full an ECG reading it will give - so that could give people a false sense of security. Over and above the fact that if you have AF you’ll likely have a high HR, be sweating, breathless etc. All things that should be checked out anyway, even if the ECG on your watch says fine. So yes, it will save some lives. But is it a stand out, wildly useful feature without draw backs? No I don’t think it is. And there are reasons as others have indicated to be sceptical about how useful it could be. 


  • Reply 45 of 69
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    GeorgeBMac said:
     And it is never used in a medical setting.
    1) Never? So despite all the single-lead devices on the market you believe nary a one would ever be used by a health care professional? Not even a home nurse or a clinic?

    2) Do you have any evidence to support an implication that it offers no medical information that could save a life?

    But, the way it was presented as "an EKG" implied the regular medical grade EKG.

    If you had paid attention you'd see that they specifically said it was "similar to a Lead-1 ECG" at the 23m:51s mark of the presentation. Are you saying that's a lie?

    What about his statement a couple minutes earlier that this is the first device sold over the counter? That part seems most unlikely to me, not that their EKG tech is useless, because I can find EKG metes for sale from Amazon that don't seem to require a physicians approval to buy.

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 46 of 69
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    mpw_amherst said:
    I can’t see why any of us would need or want to regularly have an ECG, especially if it is one less useful and informative than a 12 lead reading.
    Who does periodic 12-lead EKG checks at home? I certainly don't, so if this is just 30 seconds from my Watch I will be more likely to do it. If that tells me that I then need to see a doctor and the doctor then does a more extensive EKG then I don't see a downside. 

    This sounds like people saying that the iPhone camera isn't as good as this or that DSLR with a bulky size and removable lenses all with a huge cost. As they say, the best camera is the one you have with you, so why wouldn't the best EKG be the one you have with you (which in no way states that if you're at a doctor's office that you shouldn't use a more accurate device).
    Well quite. But this is also my point. Who does, or more importantly needs, regular ECGs? The answer: no one. If you have AF then you’ll be alerted by several obvious symptoms anyway. And it’s unclear that this will provide an ECG with any more useful data of function than scanning for AF. I just don’t see this as having much real world use beyond a gimmick. As mentioned elsewhere, oxygen sats, glucose levels - would be far more useful. 
    Does the average person need regular heart rate monitoring? Apparently not since it wasn't common on CE until the Apple Watch and yet there have been many lives saved because of it, including people on this forum, so I'm not sure what you're getting at by saying that AFib detection won't help save a single life.
    Well I never said it wouldn’t save a single life, did I
    You did. You flat out said that "no one" needs it which implies that it would do "no one" any good to have it on their Watch (or in any of the countless other devices that offer single-lead EKG readings).
    edited September 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 47 of 69
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    Well deserved kudos to Apple for this one
    SoliSpamSandwichclaire1
  • Reply 48 of 69
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    mpw_amherst said:
    I can’t see why any of us would need or want to regularly have an ECG, especially if it is one less useful and informative than a 12 lead reading.
    Who does periodic 12-lead EKG checks at home? I certainly don't, so if this is just 30 seconds from my Watch I will be more likely to do it. If that tells me that I then need to see a doctor and the doctor then does a more extensive EKG then I don't see a downside. 

    This sounds like people saying that the iPhone camera isn't as good as this or that DSLR with a bulky size and removable lenses all with a huge cost. As they say, the best camera is the one you have with you, so why wouldn't the best EKG be the one you have with you (which in no way states that if you're at a doctor's office that you shouldn't use a more accurate device).
    Well quite. But this is also my point. Who does, or more importantly needs, regular ECGs? The answer: no one. If you have AF then you’ll be alerted by several obvious symptoms anyway. And it’s unclear that this will provide an ECG with any more useful data of function than scanning for AF. I just don’t see this as having much real world use beyond a gimmick. As mentioned elsewhere, oxygen sats, glucose levels - would be far more useful. 
    Does the average person need regular heart rate monitoring? Apparently not since it wasn't common on CE until the Apple Watch and yet there have been many lives saved because of it, including people on this forum, so I'm not sure what you're getting at by saying that AFib detection won't help save a single life.
    Well I never said it wouldn’t save a single life, did I
    You did. You flat out said that "no one" needs it which implies that it would do "no one" any good to have it on their Watch (or in any of the countless other devices that offer single-lead EKG readings).
    thanks for your straw man. I’ll put it by the fire with the corn dolly. 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 49 of 69
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    mpw_amherst said:
    I can’t see why any of us would need or want to regularly have an ECG, especially if it is one less useful and informative than a 12 lead reading.
    Who does periodic 12-lead EKG checks at home? I certainly don't, so if this is just 30 seconds from my Watch I will be more likely to do it. If that tells me that I then need to see a doctor and the doctor then does a more extensive EKG then I don't see a downside. 

    This sounds like people saying that the iPhone camera isn't as good as this or that DSLR with a bulky size and removable lenses all with a huge cost. As they say, the best camera is the one you have with you, so why wouldn't the best EKG be the one you have with you (which in no way states that if you're at a doctor's office that you shouldn't use a more accurate device).
    Well quite. But this is also my point. Who does, or more importantly needs, regular ECGs? The answer: no one. If you have AF then you’ll be alerted by several obvious symptoms anyway. And it’s unclear that this will provide an ECG with any more useful data of function than scanning for AF. I just don’t see this as having much real world use beyond a gimmick. As mentioned elsewhere, oxygen sats, glucose levels - would be far more useful. 
    Does the average person need regular heart rate monitoring? Apparently not since it wasn't common on CE until the Apple Watch and yet there have been many lives saved because of it, including people on this forum, so I'm not sure what you're getting at by saying that AFib detection won't help save a single life.
    Well I never said it wouldn’t save a single life, did I
    You did. You flat out said that "no one" needs it which implies that it would do "no one" any good to have it on their Watch (or in any of the countless other devices that offer single-lead EKG readings).
    thanks for your straw man. I’ll put it by the fire with the corn dolly. 
    Your claim that it would benefit "no one" is the straw man. That is literally the core of your failed argument.
    edited September 2018 tmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 50 of 69
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    gatorguy said:
    Well deserved kudos to Apple for this one
    I'm being told by armchair cardiologists on this forum this it will benefit no one and that no medical professional would ever use anything other a 12-lead device regardless of the circumstance. It looks like Apple failed once again¡
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 51 of 69
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    mpw_amherst said:
    I can’t see why any of us would need or want to regularly have an ECG, especially if it is one less useful and informative than a 12 lead reading.
    Who does periodic 12-lead EKG checks at home? I certainly don't, so if this is just 30 seconds from my Watch I will be more likely to do it. If that tells me that I then need to see a doctor and the doctor then does a more extensive EKG then I don't see a downside. 

    This sounds like people saying that the iPhone camera isn't as good as this or that DSLR with a bulky size and removable lenses all with a huge cost. As they say, the best camera is the one you have with you, so why wouldn't the best EKG be the one you have with you (which in no way states that if you're at a doctor's office that you shouldn't use a more accurate device).
    Well quite. But this is also my point. Who does, or more importantly needs, regular ECGs? The answer: no one. If you have AF then you’ll be alerted by several obvious symptoms anyway. And it’s unclear that this will provide an ECG with any more useful data of function than scanning for AF. I just don’t see this as having much real world use beyond a gimmick. As mentioned elsewhere, oxygen sats, glucose levels - would be far more useful. 
    Does the average person need regular heart rate monitoring? Apparently not since it wasn't common on CE until the Apple Watch and yet there have been many lives saved because of it, including people on this forum, so I'm not sure what you're getting at by saying that AFib detection won't help save a single life.
    Well I never said it wouldn’t save a single life, did I
    You did. You flat out said that "no one" needs it which implies that it would do "no one" any good to have it on their Watch (or in any of the countless other devices that offer single-lead EKG readings).
    thanks for your straw man. I’ll put it by the fire with the corn dolly. 
    You claim that it would benefit "no one" is the straw man.
    At least be honest about repeatedly misquoting me. I said, ‘Who does, or more importantly needs, regular ECGs?’ The key word there being ‘regular’. Not sure why you’re so upset about the expression of an opinion. I am merely agreeing with others that how accurate and fulsome a feature this is was not clear and it seems unlikely to replicate a lead ECG. I won’t repeat all the arguments why that maybe a concern and that while useful, the facility really only has limited application. I’ll leave you to misquote me on those ;)
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 52 of 69
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    mpw_amherst said:
    I can’t see why any of us would need or want to regularly have an ECG, especially if it is one less useful and informative than a 12 lead reading.
    Who does periodic 12-lead EKG checks at home? I certainly don't, so if this is just 30 seconds from my Watch I will be more likely to do it. If that tells me that I then need to see a doctor and the doctor then does a more extensive EKG then I don't see a downside. 

    This sounds like people saying that the iPhone camera isn't as good as this or that DSLR with a bulky size and removable lenses all with a huge cost. As they say, the best camera is the one you have with you, so why wouldn't the best EKG be the one you have with you (which in no way states that if you're at a doctor's office that you shouldn't use a more accurate device).
    Well quite. But this is also my point. Who does, or more importantly needs, regular ECGs? The answer: no one. If you have AF then you’ll be alerted by several obvious symptoms anyway. And it’s unclear that this will provide an ECG with any more useful data of function than scanning for AF. I just don’t see this as having much real world use beyond a gimmick. As mentioned elsewhere, oxygen sats, glucose levels - would be far more useful. 
    Does the average person need regular heart rate monitoring? Apparently not since it wasn't common on CE until the Apple Watch and yet there have been many lives saved because of it, including people on this forum, so I'm not sure what you're getting at by saying that AFib detection won't help save a single life.
    Well I never said it wouldn’t save a single life, did I
    You did. You flat out said that "no one" needs it which implies that it would do "no one" any good to have it on their Watch (or in any of the countless other devices that offer single-lead EKG readings).
    thanks for your straw man. I’ll put it by the fire with the corn dolly. 
    You claim that it would benefit "no one" is the straw man.
    At least be honest about repeatedly misquoting me. I said, ‘Who does, or more importantly needs, regular ECGs?’ The key word there being ‘regular’. Not sure why you’re so upset about the expression of an opinion. I am merely agreeing with others that how accurate and fulsome a feature this is was not clear and it seems unlikely to replicate a lead ECG. I won’t repeat all the arguments why that maybe a concern and that while useful, the facility really only has limited application. I’ll leave you to misquote me on those ;)
    That's an even weaker argument. By that measure I don't require irregular heart rate monitoring or an auto-call in case I fall, but these are good features to have in and when this becomes an issue.

    If a single-lead EKG is so fucking pointless why are there countless products on the market that do exactly that and why is the AHA supporting Apple in this achievement? Maybe—just maybe—your "it's not as good as a 12-lead device so it's not good for anyone" argument is shortsighted.

    PS: Of all the things for people to dump on Apple about with this event this is the last one I would've expected for people to bitch about.
    edited September 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 53 of 69
    anomeanome Posts: 1,533member
    anome said:
    bostonbri said:
    The pricing is disappointing.  $100 more for a stainless steel.  The 42 was $649, now $749.  I will wait a bit because that's getting pricey.  Also the stainless steel is not being sold on Series 3 anymore.  

    That's been the strategy. Ditch the previous Steel version, and sell the previous Aluminium version at a discount.

    Shame about the Ceramic, though. Not that I was ever going to afford one.

    Getting rid of the ceramic version opens it up for possible other new materials. How'd you like a solid diamond case? ;)

    Yeah, great, just let me sell a few internal organs to afford it...oh damn, my kidneys aren't worth enough.

    Sapphire, though. Much more likely. Or they still own all those Liquid Metal patents, don't they?

    SpamSandwichwatto_cobra
  • Reply 54 of 69
    The Apple Watch Series 4 has received clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to operate as an over-the-counter ECG-monitoring device, becoming the first device available to consumers over the counter to offer the functionality.



    The ECG functionality will be available at first to customers in the United States, with Apple also working to bring the feature to other markets at a later time.

    Updated with clarification regarding AliveCor's KardiaBand.
    What happens if I buy a Watch from the US and bring it in to Canada? Will the feature still work?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 55 of 69
    doctorA&E said:
    Hello everyone. I am very curious about how it works and on which bases the FDA gave the approval to this device. I am curious to know how it can read a 12 lead ecg reproducing it. Providing a simple lead it’s completely useless and it sounds only like a trade strategy to cheat people. So I invite everyone to be very cautious about this without any proven demonstration. The ECG records cardiac electricity that a mobile phone or a watch cannot do. So please let’s invite these engineers to play their PS4 and leave the medicine and very serious things to doctors, especially when it comes to the heart. 
    Apple states clearly that it is a single-lead EKG, so there is no cheating or whatsoever here:

    Apple Watch Series 4 is capable of generating an ECG similar to a single-lead electrocardiogram. It’s a momentous achievement for a wearable device that can provide critical real-time data for doctors and peace of mind for you.”

    https://www.apple.com/apple-watch-series-4/health/

    I’d like to have a device on my wrist that would detect some irregularities and warn me about to see my doctor, but not a device that would replace my doctor. Your understanding of Apple and most probably of technology appears cartoonish given your objection style.
    SoliSpamSandwichwatto_cobra
  • Reply 56 of 69
    Soli said:
    GeorgeBMac said:
     And it is never used in a medical setting.
    1) Never? So despite all the single-lead devices on the market you believe nary a one would ever be used by a health care professional? Not even a home nurse or a clinic?

    2) Do you have any evidence to support an implication that it offers no medical information that could save a life?

    But, the way it was presented as "an EKG" implied the regular medical grade EKG.

    If you had paid attention you'd see that they specifically said it was "similar to a Lead-1 ECG" at the 23m:51s mark of the presentation. Are you saying that's a lie?

    What about his statement a couple minutes earlier that this is the first device sold over the counter? That part seems most unlikely to me, not that their EKG tech is useless, because I can find EKG metes for sale from Amazon that don't seem to require a physicians approval to buy.

    1)  As a nurse.  No.   I've never seen one used in a medical setting.   In fact, the only place I have ever seen one used is by an athlete with one of the old chest straps to track heart rate -- which is all they are good for.
    2)  Nice misquote!  I never said or implied anything of the kind.

    As for the "similar to a Lead-1 ECG" I missed that.   Thank you.   Most of the presentation was talking about "ECG" implying that it was similar to  a 12 lead not a single lead.   So, since most people are not aware of the considerable limits of a single lead EKG, I will welcome a clarification.

    And, no.   I am not trashing Apple or the sensor.  I would simply like more information about its capabilities and clarification of its limits compared to a medical 12 lead EKG.
  • Reply 57 of 69
    Soli said:
    gatorguy said:
    Well deserved kudos to Apple for this one
    I'm being told by armchair cardiologists on this forum this it will benefit no one and that no medical professional would ever use anything other a 12-lead device regardless of the circumstance. It looks like Apple failed once again¡
    No, not failed.  (Nice try!)   But a 12 lead EKG -- which is the medical standard -- will provide reams more data than a single lead which can only measure heart rate.   Yes, it measures it very accurately.   It is apparently accurate enough to detect an arrhythmia.  But still it is not what has, to this point, been called an "EKG".

    The truth is:  the only "single lead EKG's" were the old chest straps used by cyclists and runners to track their heart rate.
  • Reply 58 of 69
    doctorA&E said:
    Hello everyone. I am very curious about how it works and on which bases the FDA gave the approval to this device. I am curious to know how it can read a 12 lead ecg reproducing it. Providing a simple lead it’s completely useless and it sounds only like a trade strategy to cheat people. So I invite everyone to be very cautious about this without any proven demonstration. The ECG records cardiac electricity that a mobile phone or a watch cannot do. So please let’s invite these engineers to play their PS4 and leave the medicine and very serious things to doctors, especially when it comes to the heart. 
    Apple states clearly that it is a single-lead EKG, so there is no cheating or whatsoever here:

    Apple Watch Series 4 is capable of generating an ECG similar to a single-lead electrocardiogram. It’s a momentous achievement for a wearable device that can provide critical real-time data for doctors and peace of mind for you.”

    https://www.apple.com/apple-watch-series-4/health/

    I’d like to have a device on my wrist that would detect some irregularities and warn me about to see my doctor, but not a device that would replace my doctor. Your understanding of Apple and most probably of technology appears cartoonish given your objection style.
    Well no....   Yes, they did in their spot mention it is similar to a single lead.   But generally they simply call it an EKG -- which for most people means the EKG they get in a health clinic -- which it isn't.  

    If you go to cardiologist and tell him you have an EKG on your wrist he will laugh at you.
  • Reply 59 of 69
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    melgross said:

    An FDA-approved medical grade device that allows easy collection and delivery of historical ECG data to a doctor.  Hmm.  Sounds like a device that might be covered by insurance, and might be subsidized by employers.  
    Apple watches and some FitBit devices are already subsidized by some insurance companies, and given to their employees. This will just make it closer to ubiquity.
    Would the watch qualify as a medical expense covered by an HSA?
    I don’t know.
  • Reply 60 of 69
    melgross said:
    melgross said:

    An FDA-approved medical grade device that allows easy collection and delivery of historical ECG data to a doctor.  Hmm.  Sounds like a device that might be covered by insurance, and might be subsidized by employers.  
    Apple watches and some FitBit devices are already subsidized by some insurance companies, and given to their employees. This will just make it closer to ubiquity.
    Would the watch qualify as a medical expense covered by an HSA?
    I don’t know.
    Will you be getting one -- in light of the benefit you got from the one you have?
Sign In or Register to comment.