We need to stop talking about mobility as though the only legitimate goal is getting a person from one piece of furniture to another at the lowest possible cost.

People with limb loss have jobs that require stairs, uneven ground, long shifts, carrying equipment, or repeated standing. They have children. They walk dogs. They mow yards. They travel. They exercise because health does not become optional after amputation. Some compete in sports. Some simply want to keep up with the life they already had.

Yet the access conversation can shrink those goals into a question that sounds suspiciously like: What is the least we can provide and still call this mobility?

Current Medicare policy does cover prosthetics when requirements are met, but beneficiaries may still face standard DMEPOS cost sharing. Certain lower-limb components require prior authorization. Outside Medicare, coverage varies widely enough that nonprofits such as the Challenged Athletes Foundation explicitly fund sports prostheses and adaptive equipment that medical insurance often does not cover.

Maryland’s newly enacted So Every Body Can Move law points toward a better idea by tying prosthetic coverage to daily living, work, and physical activity when medically necessary under the law’s terms.

That should not sound radical. Mobility is not one speed, one room, or one definition of acceptable participation.

We can debate which technology is clinically appropriate. We can demand evidence. We can require responsible prescribing and honest discussion of limitations. Fine. But the starting assumption should not be that a fuller life is an optional accessory.

If the device is necessary for a person to function in the life they actually live, stop calling that luxury.

← Back to the Friday issue