►
From YouTube: e-NABLE SPC Meeting - November 20, 2020
Description
This is a recording of the e-NABLE Strategic Planning Committee meeting for Friday, November 20, 2020.
The notes/agenda document can be found here: https://bit.ly/37TtkBf
B
No
bob
today
yeah,
but
maybe
he'll,
join
in
we'll
see
john.
I
see
you
put
your
name
down
for
notes,
you're
handling
that
excellent.
Thank
you.
Okay,
we're
just
gonna,
go
through
our
action
items
and
then
we'll
have
safe.
B
Today
is
gonna
talk
to
us
about
her
research
findings
and
then
we'll
see
if
we
have
time
for
anything
else,
but
action
items
first,
first
one's
bob
so
we'll
check
back
with
him
later
and
then
we
have
john
to
arrange
an
orientation
meeting
with
me
and
martin
to
look
at
quickbooks.
We
haven't
done
that
yet,
which
leads
into
my
task
and
the
next
item,
which
is
to
review
quickbooks.
So
I
looked
at
it.
B
I
I
need
to
have
people
kind
of
guide
me
through
what
the
different
accounts
are
for
and
and
try
to
figure
out
how
we
get
access
to
those
different
accounts.
So
I
can
get
reconciliation
statements
and
things
like
that.
So
that's
a
working
process.
B
Then
we
have
another
one
for
bob.
So
we'll
come
back
to
that.
Then
we
have
john
review
conference
schedules
to
identify
potential
partners
and
it
says
no
imminent
conferences,
however,
see
below
compatible
organizations.
So
I
guess
that's
on
the
agenda.
C
B
Fair
enough
next,
one
is
for
me
to
set
up
a
simplified
form
for
people
to
request
a
device,
and
I
have
not
done
that.
I
had
a
busy
busier
than
expected
week
so
leave
that
on
for
me,
and
then
we
have
ben
reach
out
to
teachers,
pay
teachers
to
ask
about
an
api
for
their
platforms.
People
get
paid
for
their
curriculum
materials.
A
Yeah,
we'll
have
to
just
leave
it
on
there.
I
haven't
heard
back
and
I
I
frankly
haven't
put
in
enough
energy
to
chase
after
them,
but
that's
something
I
can
do
fair
enough.
B
Okay,
so
upcoming
special
presentations.
As
I
said
today,
we've
got
safe,
hey,
there's,
susan.
A
B
Okay,
so
today
we've
got
safe.
Now
I've
got
a
note
down
here
that
maybe
next
week
we
were
going
to
have
ed
talk
to
us
about
dealing
with
eu
regulations.
Did
we
decide
that
we
are
going
to
do
a
meeting
on
the
27th,
in
spite
of
it
being
the
day
after
thanksgiving
for
us
here
in
the
u.s?
Is
that
okay,
with
everyone.
A
Yeah
I've,
so
I've
invited
both
the
3d
crowd
lot
and
the
deloitte
lot.
So
our
plan
was
to
have
a
bit
of
a
briefing
on
3d
crowd
bit
of
a
briefing
on
the
eu
stuff
and
then,
and
maybe
if,
if
then,
someone
could
give
an
intro
to
enable
to
both
those
groups.
That
would
be
great.
B
Sounds
like
a
plan?
Okay,
let's
see
so
I
don't
think
we
have
any
introductions
for
today.
Anybody
have
any.
I
don't
know
that
we'll
get
too
much
on
our
agenda,
but
does
anybody
want
to
add
anything
to
our
agenda
that
you
want
to
talk
about
today?.
A
Maybe
I'll
just
mention
really
quickly
that
on
monday
I'll
be
presenting
a
little
intro
to
lindsay's
nice
gate
presentation,
which
is
focused
on
the
enable
curriculum,
I'll
talk
primarily
just
about
the
community
and
about
sort
of
the
the
pivot
to
ppe.
C
You
might
be
able
to
record
that
then
independent.
A
B
We've
got
all
of
the
usual
statistics
and
charts
and
everything
here
on
the
next
couple
of
pages,
which
I'll
let
people
review
for
themselves.
Nothing
really
stood
out
as
anomalous
this
week
and
with
that,
I'm
going
to
turn
things
over
to
you
safe
and
take
whatever
time
you
need,
and
if
we
have
time
left
over
we've
got
things
on
the
agenda.
We
can
talk
about,
but
take
as
much
time
as
you
want.
Those
things
are
optional
today.
D
Thank
you,
I'm
going
to
share
very
quickly
my
screen,
I'm
going
to
share
a
little
bit
about
the
paper
that
we
did
and
our
main
research
findings.
If
that
is
okay
with
you
guys.
D
Okay,
so
today
I'm
going
to
share
very
briefly
about
the
research
study
that
we
have
been
doing
with
different
enabled
participants
across
different
regions,
and
what
we
did
was
that
we
interviewed
31
participants
who
were
involved
in
3d
printing
3d
printed
assistive
technology
for
upper
limbs.
So
this
is
hands,
fingers
prosthetic
arms
as
well,
and
we-
and
this
involved
participants
from
seven
different
countries,
which
was
france,
india,
chile,
mexico,
the
us,
brazil
and
also
costa
rica,
and
here
in
this
figure.
D
What
we're
showcasing
is
the
different
ecosystems
that
people
belong
to,
that
our
participants
belong
to
and
notice
that
we
have
participants
who
are
from
who
are
clinicians,
who
are
makers
and
who
are
recipients,
and
our
goal
with
the
study
was
to
understand
the
different
experiences
that
they
were.
Having
understand
their
pain
points
and
understand,
also
where
there
was
opportunity-
and
so
here,
oh
also,
we
included
so
notice
here.
D
This
one
is
probably
the
group
that
you
are
most
familiar
with
this
is
us
enable
and
so
u.s
naval
had
a
lot
of
makers,
some
recipients,
and
we
also
had
a
clinician
that
participated
here.
We
also
included
u.s
private
companies
who
they
are
developing
3d
printed,
assistive
technology,
but
they
charge
people
for
this
technology.
D
D
We
had
one
chapter
that
was
very
closely
working
with
the
government
and-
and
so
this
that
also
happened
in
brazil,
where
their
chapter
was
working
very
closely
with
the
government,
and
then
we
had,
of
course
enable
india
with
their
own
chapter,
enable
chile,
and
this
is
and-
and
we
also
had
people
from
france
and
costa
rica
so
and
then
we
had
interviews
with
them
also
for
the
recipients.
D
We
also
conducted
a
survey
about
their
experiences
to
quantify
how
much
they
are
using
the
device
and
what
what
is
going
on,
and
so
this
and
oh,
and
so
here
is
a
little
table
with
like
more
details
about
the
the
participants
which
you
can
you
can
see.
So
this
this
table
has
all
of
the
details
of
the
different
participants
and,
and
what
is
going
on
so
overall.
D
The
finding
that
I
I
think
is
is
important
for
me
to
share
with
you
is
we
found
that
there
were
ecosystems
that
involved
all
three
actors
that
had
clinicians
recipients
and
makers
working
closely
together?
D
Those
echo
systems
were
the
ones
that
in
in
which
recipients
were
using
their
device,
the
most
and
also
had
the
most
satisfaction.
So
let
me
actually
show
this
little
table
that
we
have.
Oh
here's
like
just
a
photo
of
a
recipient
who
is
also
a
maker.
So
we
have
this.
So
we,
oh
sorry.
D
So
we
have
this
graph,
which
shows
each
point
represents
a
recipient
and
the
x-axis
showcases.
How
satisfied
the
recipient
is
with
their
device,
the
y-axis,
how
long
the
recipient
has
been
using
their
device
and
they
are
color
coded
based
on
whether
or
not
the
recipient
received
follow-up
or
not.
D
One
of
the
things
that
we
found
was
that,
and
so
here,
for
instance,
we
have
these
recipients
who
are
pink,
who
did
not
receive
follow-up,
and
these
recipients
also
did
not
receive
follow-up,
but
because
they
were
makers,
they
did
use
their
device
a
longer
term.
So,
okay,
let
me
first
start
to
explain
this.
So
the
first
thing
that
we
found
was
that
recipients
who
did
not
receive
follow-up
in
general
did
not
use
their
device,
and
so
when
recipients
did
not
receive
follow-up,
they
felt
that
their
device
didn't
fit
them
properly.
D
They
didn't
know
how
to
use
their
device,
and
so
here
basically,
we
had
them
within
just
the
zero
zero,
which
is
that
they
didn't
have
any
usage
for
for
the
device
and
they
they
they
also
weren't
able
to
even
express
like,
were
they
satisfied
or
or
completely
dissatisfied
with
their
device,
because
they
just
didn't
use
it
at
all.
And
so
these
recipients
were
the
ones
that
basically,
they
did
not
receive
follow-up.
D
And
then
we
have
these
recipients
who
they
did
not
receive
follow-up,
but
they
were
using
their
device
a
lot
and
were
satisfied,
and
what
we
found
was
that
these
recipients
were
also
makers,
and
so
the
fact
that
they
were
makers
likely
helped
them
to
be
able
to
fix
their
device
themselves
so
that
they
did
use
it.
And
so
the
first
finding
is
okay.
When
recipients
receive
follow-up,
that
does
impact
their
device
usage.
Perhaps
that
is
not
a
very
interesting
finding
because
that
that
would
be
expected.
D
And
so
I
think
that
that
I
think
that
that
is
that
that's
looking
promising
here
that
that
fact
that
recipients
who
who
who
were
also
makers,
were
able
to
start
addressing
some
of
the
problems
that
they
saw
even
when
they
did
not
receive
any
type
of
follow-up
now,
and
so
that
that
can
lead
us
to
recommend,
for
instance,
really
thinking
about
ways
through
which
recipients
can
be
more
empowered
to
become
makers
and
address
those
and
address
those
things
now.
D
The
second
thing
that
we
were
finding
was
all
of
the
all
of
the
recipients
who
received
follow-up
came
from
ecosystems,
where
they
had
makers,
clinicians
and
recipients
working
closely,
all
three
actors
working
closely
together,
and
so
that
was
the
way
in
which
they
could
provide
that
follow-up,
because,
basically,
the
doc,
the
the
health
care,
the
clinicians,
were
defining
what
the
follow-up
would
look
like
and
the
clinicians
many
times
this
follow-up
involved.
D
Okay,
we
are
going
to
give
you
therapy
to
help
you
adopt
the
device
longer
term,
and
so
and-
and
it
was
mainly
the
clinicians
who
were
actually
driving
the
follow-up,
and
the
clinicians
also
were
very
well
aware
about
what
the
follow-up
should
look
like,
apparently,
because
this
is
part
of
their
profession,
so
within
their
profession,
they
have
very
well
defined
guidelines
about
the
type
of
follow-up
that
you
should
give
to
an
end
user
to
keep
them
happy
and
so
that
that's
the
second
finding
ecosystems
that
had
all
three
all
three
actors
were
able
to
provide
follow-up.
D
The
ones
that
didn't
that
lack
clinicians
in
general
were
not
able
to
provide
follow-up
many
times,
because
also
the
even
the
makers
were
not
aware
that
they
had
to
provide
it
and
the
clinicians.
Also,
they
thought
a
lot
about
details
related
to
providing
follow-up,
which
was
okay.
You
need
to
also
have
funding
in
order
to
be
able
to
provide
the
follow-up
funding
in
terms
of
having,
for
instance,
paid
staff
that
can
be
on
call
for
any
need
that
the
recipients
might
have.
D
Then
these
needs
can
involve
giving
the
recipient
therapy
and
then
also
having
someone
that
can
fix
on
demand
what
the
recipient
needs
now.
D
Now,
in
terms
of
what
was
interesting
was
the
different
ways
in
which
these
groups
ensured
funding
for
their
for
providing
that
follow-up
for
some,
especially
in
the
us.
The
follow-up
was
provided
in
terms
of
as
as
part
of
something
that
was
within
an
insurance
policy,
and
so
within
that
insurance
policy
recipients
had
access
to
to
to
clinicians
who
were
who
were
helping
them
and
also
makers
who
could
repair
their
device
and
so
and
by
the
way,
the
follow
up.
D
When,
when
I
say
follow
up,
I
mean
what
happens
after
recipients
have
received
their
device,
and
so
anything
that
happens
after
recipients
have
received
their
device.
That
is
follow-up,
and
so
the
second
thing
that
we
found
was
that
follow-up.
Sorry,
the
the
ways
in
which
certain
groups
and
short
follow-up
was
different,
for,
in
some
cases
it
didn't
it
involved,
creating
an
insurance
policy.
In
other
cases,
it
involved
obtaining
donations
and
then
having
funds
to
cover
all
of
the
needs
of
recipients.
D
In
other
cases,
it
involved.
Okay,
we're
going
to
create
a
collaboration
with
the
government,
and
this
collaboration
with
the
government
is
going
to
involve
this
collaboration
with
the
government
is
going
to
involve
sorry.
This
collaboration
with
the
government
is
going
to
involve
them,
providing
the
funds
to
cover
the
follow-up.
So
maybe
the
government
is
paying
for
the
hospitals
to
to
provide
that
follow-up.
Another
thing
was,
for
instance,
in
chile.
D
D
Recipients
appeared
to
like
this
because
it
gave
them
agency
in
terms
of
if
they
had
money
they
they
didn't
have
to
to
worry
about
being
a
burden
on
the
makers,
but
rather
they
were
paying
for
that
service,
and
so
they
liked
that
that
fact
that
they
didn't
feel
that
they
were
a
burden,
but
rather
okay,
I'm
just
gonna
pay
to
get
this
fixed,
and
so,
and
so
overall,
the
biggest
finding
is
ecosystems
that
had
the
three
actors
were
the
ones
that
were
able
to
provide
follow-up,
and
I
would
argue
that
in
general,
the
echo
systems
that
were
able
to
include
the
three
actors
were
ecosystems
where
they
created
formal
collaborations
with
the
different
actors.
D
So
what
does
this
mean?
For
instance,
in
mexico
they
had
a
formal
collaboration
with
the
government,
and
the
government
was
the
one
who
said:
okay,
you
know
what
the
hospital
will
be,
providing
these
resources
for
you.
The
university
is
going
to
be
providing
the
3d
printers
and
they
are
going
to
ensure
that
they
have
the
resources
to
print
out
all
of
the
prosthetics
that
are
needed.
Well,
all
of
the
assistive
devices
that
are
needed,
and
so
and
in
the
u.s,
for
instance,
they
had.
D
The
formal
collaboration,
I
would
argue,
is
the
insurance
policy
so
overall
having
those
formal
collaborations
helped
them
to
be
able
to
involve
all
three
actors,
especially
because
for
clinicians.
They.
I
think
that
they
work
better
when
they
know
that
they're
within
this
formal
setting,
especially
because
they
have
their,
do
no
harm
oath.
D
D
Oh
okay,
yes,
and
so,
okay,
and
so
overall,
I
think
that
the
the
big
takeaway
that
I
would
argue
for
for
our
group
is
in
order
to
provide
follow-up.
It
can
be
helpful
to
think
about
establishing
formal
collaborations
with
the
clinicians
so
that
they
have
their
skin
in
the
game.
D
It's
not
just
this
voluntary
interaction
that
they
have,
but
rather
that
they
have,
but,
but
rather
that
they
are
involved
in
a
in
a
formal
way
in
in
the
effort,
and
I
I
think
that
also
it
more
helpful
to
have
clinicians
be
the
ones
who
are
driving
the
follow-up,
because
within
their
profession,
this
is
something
that
they
are
accustomed
to
doing,
and
so
they
can
really
help
to
define
what
that
follow-up
should
look
like
and
so
yeah
that
that,
I
would
say,
is
one
of
the
biggest
findings
from
from
the
work.
D
I
think
that
some
things
to
consider
is
that
creating
those
formal
collaborations
within
the
maker
movement
is
difficult,
because
the
maker
movement
sees
the
the
maker
movement.
D
Many
times
focuses
on
creating
fun
interactions
and
fun,
and,
and
so
there's
there's
a
whole
notion
about
participating
because
it's
fun
and
doing
it
in
a
very
voluntary
because
you're
intrinsically
motivated
what
I
think
that
we're
finding
is
that
the
ones
who
were
able
the
ecosystems
were
able
to.
D
To
advance
more
so
so
not
to
advance
more
to
include
the
clinicians
were
the
ones
who
created
formal
collaborations
and
didn't
focus
that
much
on
fun,
but
rather
on
ensuring
that
they
had
formal
agreements
with
the
different
actors,
the
different
stakeholders,
and
I
think
that
that
is
something
to
think
about,
because
I
think
that
can
be
conflicting
with
the
maker
movement,
because
I
I
think
that
the
maker
movement
doesn't
that
doesn't
really
push
for
formal
collaborations,
but
it
can
be
something
to
consider
and
yeah.
D
And
so
that's
that's,
I
think,
the
the
biggest
finding
I
don't
know
I
maybe
we
can
open
up
it
up
for
discussions.
D
C
It's
great
safe.
Thank
you.
I
have
a
couple
of
questions.
One
is
you
say
without
follow-up
recipients,
don't
use
devices,
but
it
wasn't
clear
to
me
whether
that's
cause
or
effect.
Is
it
the
recipients
who
was
there?
D
Yeah,
that's
a
good
question
so
from
what
I
got
actually
from
the
interviews
was
that
it
was
likely
both
so
the
the
the
individuals
the
recipients
reported
that
nobody
had
contacted
them,
and
so
I
remember
actually
a
quote
from
one
of
the
recipients,
which
was
my
device
is
just
sitting
in
a
box.
It
doesn't
fit
well,
it
doesn't
feel
well
and
basically
nobody
contacted
them
afterwards,
and
so
their
device
is
just
it
was,
was
just
sitting
there
and.
D
That's
a
good
point.
Actually,
that's
also
a
good
point.
Yes,
they
did
respond
here.
I
think
that
jen
had
a
list
of
recipients,
and
so
we
we
contacted
them
and
you're
absolutely
right
that,
because
they
did
respond
to
me
that
that
means
that
they
would
have,
they
would
have
likely
responded.
So
that's
that's
a
that's
a
good
point
that
that
says
something
about
them.
So
let
me
look
at
because
it's
helpful
for
me
to
to
to
remind
myself
about
about
about
them.
So
yeah
they
it
was.
D
It
was
a
lot
that
nobody
contacted
them
and,
and
nobody
met
with
them
to
fit
their
device.
D
D
One
comment
that
we
received
from
the
recipients,
who
did
not
receive
follow-up
but
were
makers,
was
that
they
felt
that
sometimes
the
their
ecosystem,
for
instance,
focused
more
on
creating
engaging
experiences
for
makers
instead
of
recipients,
and
so
that
led
them
that
led
them
to
and
and
so
because
the
community
was
very
much
focused
on
creating
exciting
experiences
for
makers
that
that
meant
that
sometimes
they
didn't
focus
on
the
experiences
that
recipients
had
and
also
even
the
devices.
They
felt
that
the
design
of
some
devices
was
more
focused
on
things.
D
That
makers
found
shiny
and
exciting,
then
things
that
were
actually
useful
for
for
recipients,
and
so
I
think
there
it
might
be
a
matter
of
maybe
having
more
of
a
recipient
for
well.
I
think
that
it's
hard,
because
on
one
hand,
you
want
to
have
makers
involved,
because
you
need
the
volunteers,
but
then
you
you
have
to
also
balance
it
out,
so
that
you
are
providing
useful
technology
for
for
the
recipient,
and
so
I
think
that
it's.
C
At
the
other
end
of
the
spectrum,
it
sounds
like.
You
have
said
that
when
you
have
a
cross-disciplinary
team
which
includes
follow-up,
there
is
substantial
satisfaction,
I'm
guessing
that
that
pattern
was
truer
internationally
than
it
is
in
the
united
states.
Is
that
right.
D
So
in
the
united
states
we
did
see
this
multi-disciplinary
team,
but
only
in
the
private
sector,
and
it
was
because
they
had
established
formal
collaborations
with
clinicians
through
the
insurance
policy.
C
D
I
would
argue
that
they
were
able
to
do
it
through
the
formal
collaborations
which
looked
differently
in
different
countries,
so
in
the
u.s,
this
was
through
the
insurance
policy
that
they
created
the
indian
insurance
policy,
basically
their
their
insurance
policy
in
oh.
So
when
I
say
insurance
policy,
it's.
D
Maybe
I'm
explaining
it
wrong,
but
basically
in
the
u.s,
the
insurance
policy
involves
being
able
to
fix
your
device
and
also
receiving
treatment
from
clinicians,
but
they
had
a
basically,
they
had
a
legal
agreement
that
they
would
provide
that
in
mexico
they
had
a
formal
agreement
so
also
legally,
where
the
university
would
be
providing
certain
services
to
recipients
and
the
hospital
the
public
hospital
would
be
providing
certain
services
as
well,
and
also
brazil
had
something
like
that
as
well
so
brazil,
they
they
had
formal
agreements
with
the
different
stakeholders,
legal
agreements
with
the
different
stakeholders,
so
it
can
be
worthwhile
to
think
about.
D
So
I
I
think
that
it's
a
matter
of,
for
instance,
bringing
in
everton
and
and
talking
to
him
legally.
How
did
he?
How
was
he
able
to
create
like
that
that
formal
agreement,
or
also
so
the
ones
in
mexico,
for
instance,
right
now?
D
One
of
the
problems
that
they
have
is
that
they
created
these
agreements
with
the
former
government,
and
so
now
these
agreements
are
not
they,
they
established
them,
but
now
it's
it's
no
longer
like
an
an
acting
rule
for
them.
So
I
know
that,
for
instance,
right
now
they
are,
they
have
been
struggling
in
terms
of
ensuring
that
certain
actors
do
play
their
role,
but
so
I
think
that
it
could
help
if
we
invite,
for
instance,
maybe
everton
can
share
okay.
What
does
your
formal
agreement
look
like
like
now
now?
D
I
think
that,
with
this
research,
we
know
that,
basically,
these
different
stakeholders,
what
these
different
actions,
what
they're
doing,
is
they're
creating
formal
agreements.
Okay,
great
these
formal
agreements
look
differently
in
different
countries.
I
think
that
we
could
take
inspiration
from
how
everton
is
doing
it.
Also
that
the
people
in
india
also
have
that
those
formal
agreements
as
well,
and
so
they
ended
up
hiring
actually
some
of
those
actors.
I
think
that
we
could
we
could
in.
D
We
could
bring,
for
instance,
invite
everton
invite
also
the
people
from
india
and
just
have
them
share
what
exactly?
How
exactly
what
are
the
details
of
their
formal
agreement?
And
then
we
can
learn,
learn
from
that
too.
To
do
it.
C
That's
great,
my
guess
is
that
that
will
reveal
that
many
of
these
arrangements
are
obviously
building
on
the
specifics
of
that
particular
country's
regulations.
C
At
least
half
of
enable
is
the
united
states,
where
I
think
you're
pointing
out.
We
don't
have
that
combination
very
often,
but
you
seem
to
identify
identified
at
least
a
few
cases
where
insurance
companies
did
support
the
use
of
an
enabled
device
with
a
maker
and
a
clinician.
I
would
really
like
to
know.
D
That's
a
great
idea,
so
they
weren't
exactly
enabled
devices.
They
were
3d
printed
devices
that
these
private
companies
designed
and
so
they're
they're
charging
for
their
they're
charging
recipients
for
their
for
their
designs,
and
actually,
I
think,
that's
a
great
idea
about
connecting.
I,
I
think,
what
the
ones
that
actually
might
be
the
most
helpful
to
talk
to
is
their
recipients,
because
their
recipients
were
the
ones
who
had
so
the
the
workflow
from
what
I
learned
was
the
following:
their
recipients
had
usually
a
clinician.
D
The
clinician
was
the
one
who
recommended
the
private
company
and
the
private
company,
and,
and
so
the
clinic,
the
the
recipients
had
an
insurance
and
their
insurance
provided
them.
The
clinician
and
the
clinician
was
the
one
that
mapped
them
to
the
device
from
the
private
company,
and
then
they
would
receive
their
device
and
and
through
their
insurance.
They
would
also
be
able
to
access
the
the
clinician
who
would
be
giving
them
treatment
and
then
also
the
fixes
that
the
private
company
would
provide
to
them
the
the
next
thing.
D
And
so
I
think
that
it's
going
to
be
more
helpful
to
talk
with
the
recipient,
because
the
recipient
can
share
which
insurance
policy
are
they
using
with
what
insurance.
C
D
I
think
also
it's
a
matter
of
the
actually
one
thing
was
that
the
recipients
were
very
worried
about
people
who
were
creating
devices
that
were
not
good,
because
they
were
scared,
that
that
would
scare
their
insurance
company,
and
so
that
was
a
a
big
thing
that
that
that
they
were
so
they
wanted
to
ensure
that
recipients
themselves
were
also
very
invested
in
ensuring
the
quality
of
the
devices,
because
they
felt
that
that
could
mean
that
if
insurance
companies
suddenly
felt
that
certain
devices
were
and-
and
this
was
the
word
that
they
used
crap-
they
would
no
longer
they
would
no
longer
support
them,
and
so
that
became
actually
a
huge
issue.
D
So
I
think
that
talking
with
the
recipients
is
gonna
be,
so
I
think
that
some
of
the
things
that
we
could
do
is
right.
Now,
with
this
research,
we
found
okay,
these
formal
collaborations
help,
and
now
we
can
just
identify
the
details.
So
how
exactly
were
these
private
companies
able
to
do
it?
I
think
that
it's
going
to
be
easier
to
talk
with
the
recipients
than
with
the
private
companies
themselves,
because
the
private
company
might
also
be
protective,
because.
C
D
Not
there,
this
is,
this
is
also
how
their
business
model
works.
My
impression
was,
these
private
companies
are
teaming
up
with
certain
clinicians
and,
and
so
the
clinician
is
usually
the
one
that
is
recommending
their
devices
to
the
recipients,
and
so
they
might,
and
so
the
the
private
companies
might
not
necessarily
want
to
share
like
their
network.
A
I've
got
two
quick
points.
One
is
about
the
term
formal
in
in
relation
to
a
formal
setting,
a
formal
relationship.
A
A
That's
been
a
really
fascinating
obstacle
for
the
mask
project.
There's
been
situations
where
we
cannot
give
masks
away
for
free.
We
need
to
have
a
formal
organization.
We
need
to
have
a
501c3.
We
need
to
have
a
tax
id
and
places
would
much
rather
buy
the
same
thing
than
receive
it
for
free
this
sort
of
ties
back
into
insurance
stuff,
but
you
know
formal
in
a
privatized
setting
or
formal
in
terms
of
a
you
know,
written
agreement.
A
So
that's
one
thing
to
to
consider
and
I
think
for
chapters
you
know
if
there's
a
chapter
that
doesn't
have
a
formalized
entity
legally,
it
is
something
where
I
think
in
and
of
itself
the
default
is
its
crap,
and
it's
it's
something
if,
in
terms
of
clinicians,
it's
not
something
that
would
apply
to
their
insurance
companies.
A
A
So
if,
if
the
chapter,
if
the
group
producing
and
providing
and
distributing
devices
care
about
the
device,
it
inspires
the
recipient
to
care,
if
they're
given
something
and
then
they
don't
care
anymore,
if
there's
no
required
feedback,
if
it's
sort
of
now
it's
up
to
you,
it
sounds
like
from
your
research
that
not
only
the
use,
but
the
satisfaction
is
you
know,
that's
it
they
they
get
it
and
they
say.
Well,
if
you
don't
care
about
this
anymore,
then
I
have
less
investment
in
it.
A
So
it's
this
long-term
investment
of
caring
about
the
results
that
help
to
potentially
inspire
the
recipient,
to
put
energy
into
it
and
to
say
this
doesn't
fit
because
and
and
care
about
the
results
you
know.
So
that's
you
know
maybe
something
to
explore.
You
know.
D
D
I
I
think
that's
exactly
key,
because
the
the
ones
that
did
not
use
it
did
express
that
that
it
was
like
they
they
they
just
received
it
and,
and
it
was
yeah
they.
They
also
felt
that
they
didn't
have
really
anyone
to
talk
to
about.
Like
that.
Oh
it's,
not
it's
not
necessarily
working,
and
so
I
think,
you're,
absolutely
right.
It's
presenting
this
idea
about
continued
care.
I
also
agree
that
I
think
actually
for
the
paper
it
would
be.
D
It's
gonna
help
us
to
unpack
a
little
bit
more,
the
different
types
of
for
of
formality.
So
in
some
cases
it
did
mean
within
you
have
a
formal
exchange
of
money
well
and
most
of
them,
actually
they
involved.
They
involved
at
least
covering
the
costs.
But
I
would
say
it's
a
lot
about
having
this
written
agreement,
and
so
maybe
that
is
also
just
better
unpacking
that
I
agree
with
you
that
that
can
make
it.
D
I
can
make
that
clearer
and
so,
for
instance,
in
mexico
they
had
a
formal
agreement
with
the
universities,
the
government
and
the
hospital.
However,
they
were
not
covering.
The
government
was
not
covering
what
was
not
giving
them
funding
directly,
or
rather
it
was
okay.
We're
gonna
have
this
formal
agreement,
and
then
it
came
out
of
the
public
resources
that
the
university
and
the
hospital
already
had
to
cover
those
costs,
but
yeah.
I
really
liked
great
great
points.
Ben.
Thank
you.
I
really
like
what
you
mentioned
about
continued
care.
C
A
C
A
B
C
Okay,
so
my
question,
which
I
have
remembered,
has
to
do
with
the
fact
that
you
were
looking
at
your
your
scope
was
3d
printed
upper
limb,
assisted
devices,
some
of
which
were
enabled
devices,
some
of
which
were
not,
I
think,
yeah,
which
raises
the
question
of.
To
what
extent
is
this
a
study
of
prosthetics
in
general
versus
relevant
to
enable
and
enable
devices?
D
So
all
of
the
devices
were
a
3d
printed,
3d
printed,
assisted
devices
for
upper
extremities.
D
The
difference
I
would
say
is
that
what
I
understand
is
that
enable
has
concrete
designs
that
you
guys
have
created,
that
your
community
has
created
and,
for
instance,
the
privates
and
so
for
the
chapters
in
latin
america
many
times
they're
using
your
same
designs
or
other
times,
they're
creating
their
own
designs.
D
But
at
the
end
of
the
day,
they're
3d
printed
assistive
devices
for
upper
extremities
for
the
private
companies.
They
presented
themselves
as
they
have
their
own
designs
that
are
independent
of
enable
and
so.
C
A
lot
of
those
devices
might
be
bionic
more
advanced
well,
whether
whether
or
not
using
their
charging
for
them.
C
B
I
think
that
that's
still
a
significant
finding,
you
know
it
confirms
something
that
I
think
we
already
strongly
suspected.
So
it's
not,
it
doesn't
go
against
our
intuition
either.
I
think
the
fact
that
that
having
the
two
pieces
that
struck
me
was
having
clinicians
involved
as
well
as
doing
follow-up.
Those
seem
to
be
really
key
factors,
and
those
are
things
we've
talked
about
for
quite
some
time.
A
Because
this
this
definitely
chimes
in
with
what
our
own
experience
in
the
research
that
we've
done
and
you
know,
but
it's
really
good
to
see
it
laid
out
much
more
in
a
in
a
very
well-structured
way.
I
I
just
really
really
impressed
with
the
the
research
it
looks.
Fantastic
says.
A
I
think
I
I
think
yeah
it
does.
It
does
tally
with
what
we've
been
doing,
and
I
mean
I
think
that,
interestingly,
a
lot
of
what
we're
having
to
do
as
part
of
the
conforming
with
the
eu
regulations,
we
have
to
involve
clinicians
like
that's
just
in
order
to
to
do
it
and
also
then,
by
definition,
it
kind
of
leads
to
there
being
more
of
an
established
relationship
and
therefore
more
follow-up.
A
So
so
I
hopefully,
I
think
that
a
lot
of
what
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
next
week
will
align
with
this
in
terms
of.
B
And
I
I
think
it
would
be
worth
digging
into
that
a
little
bit
too,
because
we
now
have
two
large
groups
that
are
are
in
that
situation.
The
folks
there
in
the
uk
and
the
folks
in
brazil
are
both
required
to
be
working
with
medical
professionals,
and
so
I
wonder
if
we
look
at
their
cases
as
compared
to
other
areas
where
we
don't
have
that
as
a
standard
such
as
the
us,
I
suspect
that
we
would.
B
We
would
see
that
confirmed
that
the
people
in
those
areas
like
brazil
and
the
uk
probably
have
a
higher
degree
of
success
rate,
a
higher
degree
of
adoption
and
everything
just
because
they
have
that
medical
professional
involved
to
ensure
proper
fit.
They
have
proper
follow-up.
They
have
any
issues
addressed
that
that
would
be
worth
digging
into
just
a
quick
point
of
order.
Everyone
we
do
have
our
new
member
meet
up
for
new,
enable
members
starting
in
eight
minutes.
So
we
are
gonna
have
to
wrap
this.
We're
not
gonna,
be
able
to
run
late
today.
A
D
B
There's
a
the
the
tricky
part
is
how
how
do
we?
How
do
we,
for
example,
I'm
just
using
us
as
an
example,
because
I've
I've
long
wanted
to
see
this
done
in
the
us?
You
know
getting
the
medical
professionals
involved,
having
them
be
the
ones
to
prescribe
the
devices
and
do
the
follow-up
and
work
with
our
volunteers.
B
It
seems
like,
in
places
like
brazil
and
the
uk,
it's
almost
like
the
laws
facilitated
that
you
know
the
laws
were
in
place
to
say
this
is
how
it
must
be
done,
so
the
doctors
kind
of
got
on
board,
because
there
was
a
law
to
support
it.
We
don't
have
that
here.
So
how
do
we
get
the
medical
professionals
to
embrace
this
to
be
willing
to
work
with
our
volunteers
to
bring
that
into
the
process?
B
C
The
the
the
various
prost
prosthetic
associations,
more
often
than
not
actively
resist
our
involvement
now
it
may
be
because
they
know
that
we're
not
doing
much
good.
So
there
are
two
points
I
want.
I
I
I
see
a
nade.
I
want
to
separate
these
two
issues,
though
I
think
one
way
of
addressing
that
first
problem,
the
united
states
would
be
for
safe
and
us
to
give
this
presentation
to.
C
You
know
a
a
good
soul-searching,
self-critical
presentation
about
the
shortcomings
of
what
we've
done
now,
that
we're
collecting
data
to
those
professional
organizations
and,
at
the
same
time,
say
look.
We
have
evidence
that
this
can
be
really
useful
and
the
reason
we
haven't
been
able
to
do
better
is
in
part
because
you
have
been
resisting
us.
This
is
a
renewed
plea
for
collaboration
and
so.
B
And
I
think
it's
different
in
different
areas
in
the
us.
It's
almost
like
they
kind
of
ignore
us
they
kind
of
like.
Let
us
do
what
we
do,
but
they
don't
want
to
embrace
it
and
get
involved,
and
then
you
have
places
like
australia.
I
mean
we
just
talked
to
matt
botel
yesterday,
where
they
are
actively
resisting
him
and
harassing
him
and
trying
to
get
him
to
stop
doing
what
he's
doing
you
know.
So
you
have
different
different
levels
of
resistance
in
different
regions.
B
C
I
am
quite
confident,
eventually
being
a
new
open
source
standard
of
device
for
professional
clinicians.
So
this
is
our
challenge
is
that
we
know
we're
not
doing
that
much
good
and
we
know
that
we're
really
doing
good
and
we
we
want
to
figure
that
out
the
other.
A
E
Say,
first
of
all,
I
think
this
is
absolutely
awesome.
What
you've
done
here
is
going
to
be
the
tool
that
we
need
to
be
able
to
make
this
bridge
happen.
I
would
say,
the
whole
system
is
all
completely
relevant
to
just
the
personal
relationships
we
have
with
local
clinicians
here
in
the
united
states,
and
I
that's
how
I'm
going
to
break
through
with
my
prosthetist.
I
already
have
this
done.
I
just
need
to
follow
through
with
actually
getting
him.
E
The
devices
so
like
as
soon
as
my
business
is
registered,
we'll
have
an
income
stream
already
started.
He's
already
got
an
order
of
guitar
adapters
in
with
me.
So
at
that
point,
then
it's
just
changing
which
devices
he's
ordering
and
I
think
safe
john
and
I
could
make
a
presentation
of
my
prosthetist
and
the
hospital
campus
in
which
he
works
in
and
we
could
probably
get
it
started
here
at
presbyterian,
st
luke's,
which
is
the
limb
rehab
hospital,
the
rehab
limb,
rehab
hospital
in
colorado.
E
Part
of
the
problem
I
think
safe
is
bumping
into
with
our
medical
systems.
Is
the
united
states
is
a
patchwork
of
medical
systems,
as
we've
seen
with
coronavirus
and
states
often
run
their
own
medicaid
and
medicare
systems,
so
you're
going
to
have
to
do
individualized
approaches
to
each
state.
Now
some
of
them
are
going
to
be
similar
to
each
other,
but
they're
going
to
we're
going
to
have
to
come
up
with
approaches
that
way
to
deal
with
each
state
insurance
systems.
E
One
thing
safe,
I
was
really
curious,
is
what
is
the
company
that
you
were
working?
That
would
approve
these,
that
you
knew
of.
D
Jen
was
actually
the
one
who
connected
us
with
those
companies.
One
was
naked.
I
think
it's
naked
prosthetics.
I
can
give
you
the
names,
but,
but
basically
this
was
jen
was
the
one
who
connected
us
with
them.
He
they're
actually
based
in
seattle
in
in
a
lot
of
them,
are
based
here
in
seattle.
D
One
is
naked
prosthetics
and
I
forgot
the
other
one
but
yeah,
and
also
the
other
thing
that
they
have
is
they
have
an
ambassador
program
for
recipients,
which
I
think
that
we
could
also
consider
one
that,
I
think,
was
helpful
for
doing
what?
What
ben
mentioned
about
the
continuous
care
and.
C
The
helping
hands
group
in
south
carolina,
I
think,
has
done
quite
a
good
job
on
organizing
follow-up
in
a
non-institutional
fashion,
so
they
might
be
worth
looking
at
as
well.
I
just
have
one
last
point.
I
know
we're
out
of
time.
I
often
we
often
congratulate
ourselves
by
saying
that,
even
though
these
devices
may
not
be
of
the
medical
standards,
they
are
substantially
better
than
nothing
and
the
very
act
of
giving
has
social
and
psychological
impact.
C
If
simply
handing,
however,
if
simply
handing
over
a
device
leads
recipients
to
think
that
we
don't
care
or
that
we're
just
entertaining
ourselves,
I
think
that's
genuinely
malpractice
on
our
part.
You
know
we
have
sort
of
funny
standards
for
what
we
consider
to
be
worthwhile
or
not
worthwhile,
but
I
think,
if
we're
to
the
extent
that
that
practice,
which
is
common,
communicates
the
wrong
message,
that's
something
we
have
to
own
up
to
and
do
something
about.
So
it's
a
very
important
finding.
B
Agreed,
I
think
there
were
quite
a
few
important
findings.
This
is
obviously
a
longer
discussion,
so
we're
going
to
continue
this
discussion
in
weeks
to
come.
I
think
we've
identified
some
important
focus
areas
and
now
we're
going
to
need
to
continue
to
brainstorm
about
how
to
effectively
address
these.
So
I
think
it
gives
us
some
great
areas
to
work
on.
So
thank
you
for
the
presentation
safe.
B
A
Thanks
safe,
that
was
fantastic,
is:
is
anybody
nate,
ed
or
bob
or
safe?
I
know
say
if
you
have
a
meeting
if
anybody
wants,
I
can
put
a
link
to
this
next
meeting
in
the
chat.
B
B
A
Yeah
great,
while
I'm
getting
the
link,
we
posted
it
in
the
hub.
I
tagged
the
182
new
members
since
september.
I
sent
emails
to
88
of
them.
B
There's
the
link
ben
we're
going
to
be
late.
We
got
to
jump
over
that
meeting
now
so
grab
that
link
quick
anyone
who's
interested.
Thank
you.