Utah girl gifted life-changing bionic arm from stranger pays it forward to other kids in need
Now 9 years old, Bateman is busy riding her bike and scooter around her neighborhood in Utah – and she's got her sights set on doing even more daily tasks, like cutting her own food and doing her own hair.
Remi has been using a silicone prosthesis, covered by her health insurance, since she was 6 months old. While the prosthetic is helpful, it's heavy and doesn't give her the ability to move fingers.
"Her current prosthetic is pretty stationary and doesn't do a lot," her mother, Jami, told "CBS Mornings." The hand on Remi's prosthesis was molded into a plastic fist.
A "life changing" mission
Last year, Jami came across a social media post for Open Bionics and its 3D-printed multi-grip "Hero Arm." Each finger has its own motor, making it possible to grip everyday items with precision. Within 48 hours, Jami and her husband, Josh, scheduled a video consultation with Open Bionics and drove to their clinic in Denver, Colorado for an initial fitting.
"It was life changing," Jami said. "This bionic arm is like 95 percent of having a real hand."
The Batemans hoped insurance would help pay for the Hero Arm but their provider denied coverage, saying it wasn't "medically necessary," according to Jami. Without insurance, the bionic arm cost $24,000.
"I do understand that you can live just fine without [a hand], but imagine what you could do with two hands. I feel like the whole world is built around having two hands," Jami said.
Like many Americans with medical needs not covered by insurance, the Batemans turned to crowdsourcing.
On Dec. 10, 2024, Remi's fight for her Hero Arm made the local news. Within four days, the Batemans raised over $24,000. Andy Schoonover, CEO of CrowdHealth, a subscriber-based crowdfunding platform for medical bills, also contacted the Batemans after seeing their plea for help online.
"He told me he would pay for Remi's hand in cash," said Jami.
And that's where the story takes a turn.
Paying it forward
With Schoonover's gift, Jami realized they still had $24,000 in donations. She asked her daughter what she wanted to do with it.
"Help more kids," Remi enthusiastically replied. "So people can actually have a life-changing arm like me."
Across the country in Maryland, 9-year-old Tyraun "Taj" Johnson was also trying to raise money for a Hero Arm. He was born with a partial left hand. His family worked hand specialists at Johns Hopkins Medicine to look at surgery and different prosthesis options to give him some usage of his left hand. They were hopeful the Hero Arm could be the solution they were searching for.
But like Remi, Taj's health insurance company denied the coverage of the Hero Arm. His family was devastated.
"You're telling me that a kid able to function with daily tasks – something as small as feeding themselves, getting dressed...You're telling me that that's not medically necessary?" his mother, Kaitlin Skinner, asked.
"I would give Taj my left hand if I could," Kaitlin added.
The family started lemonade stands to raise the money for the bionic arm. In four months, they had only made $1,500.
Then they got a life-changing call from Remi's mom. The Bateman's offered to use the donations they received for Remi's arm for Taj's Hero Arm.
Open Bionics helped connect the families. Samantha Payne, co-founder of Open Bionics, told CBS News clinicians spend a lot of time assisting families in appealing insurance denials. "The technology is 20 years old and has been tested," added Payne.
A dream come true
Kaitlin was brought to tears by the Batemans' generous offer and thanked them for making Taj's dream come true.
"Taj got teary eyed when he saw a video of Remi holding a fork with the Hero Arm," Kaitlin said. One of the things Taj is most looking forward to is playing sports.
Kaitlin recently drove to New York City with Taj to meet Daniel Green, upper limb prosthetist at Open Bionics, who will make the mold that will become Taj's Hero Arm. While in New York, Taj had a surprise visitor: Remi and her mom. They arrived at our invitation.
A new friendship forged through the kindness of strangers. Remi and Taj plan to meet again during the summer.
"If we have a playdate with our [Hero] robot arms, we could be like Ironman," Remi said.
Donations for Remi continued to pour in. So she's continued to pay it forward, using the fund to help two more 11 year olds fund their Hero Arms after insurance denied their claims.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Senate megabill marks biggest Medicaid cuts in history
Senate Republicans on Tuesday passed the largest cuts to Medicaid since the program began in the 1960s, a move that would erode the social safety net and cause a spike in the number of uninsured Americans over the next decade. The tax and spending bill is projected to cost more than $3 trillion during that time, but it would be partially paid for with about $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid. Almost 12 million lower-income Americans would lose their health insurance by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It still needs to pass the House again, where some moderate Republicans have expressed concerns about the cuts. The CBO was still analyzing the bill after it was released late Friday, and many last-minute changes meant a more exact forecast on coverage losses wasn't possible before the Senate rushed to vote on it. President Trump and most congressional Republicans say the reductions aren't true cuts. They argue nobody who should be on Medicaid will lose benefits. 'We're cutting $1.7 trillion in this bill, and you're not going to feel any of it,' President Trump said at the White House last week. Still, experts and health advocates say the CBO analysis confirms that despite Trump's repeated pledges to only cut waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid, the legislation would enact an unprecedented reduction in the program currently used by more than 70 million low-income Americans. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) made an impassioned speech on the Senate floor Sunday night warning that Trump was breaking his promise not to cut Medicaid. 'The people in the White House advising the president, they're not telling him that the effect of this bill is to break a promise,' Tillis said the day after announcing he would not seek reelection. 'I'm telling the president, you have been misinformed. You supporting the Senate mark will hurt people who are eligible and qualified for Medicaid.' Over time, the losses will blunt the significant coverage gains made under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), signed by then-President Obama in 2010. 'This bill isn't being crafted to improve health care in America, or to improve the Medicaid program, or to improve the [ACA]. The purpose of these cuts in the bill is to try to find savings to pay for tax cuts,' said Andrea Ducas, vice president of health policy at the Democratic-aligned Center for American Progress. 'It's treating these health care programs as a [piggy bank]. It's just, how do we extract as much from these programs as humanly possible so that we can find the savings to pay for tax cuts,' Ducas said. The effects of the cut could be devastating, beyond coverage losses. People who lose their Medicaid would have to pay more out of pocket, driving up medical debt and leading to them likely delaying needed treatment or medication. Hospitals would see a spike in uncompensated care and overcrowding of emergency rooms. Even people who still have insurance may not have anywhere to go for care. Hospitals, nursing homes and other providers operating on thin margins warn they could close. 'Seniors will struggle to afford long-term care. People with disabilities will lose critical healthcare coverage that allows them to work and live independently. Rural communities across America will be decimated from hospital closures, and people will lose their lives,' said Richard Besser, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and former acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in a statement. 'It is unfathomable to see policymakers intentionally inflict so much damage on the people they represent.' Experts said it's nearly impossible to take almost $1 trillion out of Medicaid without impacting the entire health system, not just the people who lose insurance. By design, the group that would be hit the hardest are people who gained insurance when their states expanded Medicaid under ObamaCare. 'The bill particularly attempts to undermine the Medicaid expansion,' said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of the program on Medicaid and the Uninsured at health policy research organization KFF. 'It doesn't exactly repeal it, but many of the provisions target both expansion states and the expansion population.' The bill would achieve its savings in various ways, but the bulk of the cuts come from a strict national work requirement and new restrictions on state-levied taxes on health providers. The provider taxes were the second-largest Medicaid cut in the House bill, after the work requirements. The cuts are even larger under the Senate design. Those changes would reduce spending by nearly $191 billion over a decade, according to the CBO estimate. States impose taxes on providers to boost their federal Medicaid contributions, which they then redirect to hospitals in the form of higher reimbursements. Limiting provider taxes is a long-held conservative goal, as they argue states are gaming the current system and driving up federal Medicaid spending. But senators representing states with poorer, rural populations have objected to the scale of the provider tax cuts, including Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Tillis. The House bill would freeze the tax rate for most states, but the Senate version would require many states to lower their existing rates. As an incentive for senators uncomfortable with the provision, the bill includes a $25 billion fund to aid rural hospitals. Overnight Monday, senators voted down an amendment from Collins to double the size of the fund and increase taxes on the ultra-wealthy, but the final version ultimately included $50 billion for the fund. Hospitals said the relief fund isn't enough to make up for the impacts of the bill, and they urged lawmakers to reject it in favor of the House version — which also would have enacted unprecedented Medicaid cuts, but was less damaging to rural providers. Even some Republicans sounded the alarm. Tillis focused his ire on the provider taxes and state-directed payments, arguing they were simply too harmful to his constituents. He warned his fellow Republicans that their support for the bill could boomerang and cost them politically. Hawley condemned the provider tax cuts and other Medicaid changes but voted for the bill anyway. Part of his reasoning, he said, was that the bill was changed to delay implementation of the cuts for another year. He also touted 'tax cuts for working families' and an extension of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. Hawley in a statement after the vote urged the House to pass the bill quickly, while sounding a warning on Medicaid. 'Let me be clear, I will continue to do everything in my power to reverse future cuts to Medicaid. If Republicans want to be the party of the working class, we cannot cut health insurance for working people.' The other major Medicaid change in the bill is work requirements. For the first time in the history of the Medicaid program, the bill would require beneficiaries to prove they are working or in school at least 80 hours a month to keep their health insurance starting Dec. 31, 2026. The Senate version extends the requirement to low-income parents of children older than 14, in addition to childless adults without disabilities. States can apply for a 'good faith' exemption to delay the start until 2029, but it's up to the discretion of the Trump administration to grant it. Advocates said giving the administration power to delay coverage losses has the potential to politicize the work requirements, as the White House could grant waivers to important states Republicans need to win. The work requirements are projected to save about $325 billion over a decade, because millions of people would be moved off Medicaid rolls. Nearly six million people would eventually lose Medicaid for not meeting the House bill's work requirements, according to CBO. Work requirements 'are only money savers if people lose coverage. Otherwise they wouldn't be in this bill,' Ducas said. 'I think that's pretty clearly the intent.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
USA Today
5 hours ago
- USA Today
How Trump's tax bill could cut Medicaid for millions of Americans
The Senate cleared President Donald Trump's domestic spending and tax cut bill that will enact steep cuts to the nation's safety-net health insurance program for low income families. In addition to delivering tax cuts and increasing immigration enforcement, what Trump has called the "Big Beautiful Bill" would cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid, the state-federal health program for low-income families and the disabled. The bill is projected to eliminate insurance coverage for 11.8 million people over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Another 5 million could lose coverage if Congress doesn't extend the COVID-19 pandemic-era tax credits that have made Affordable Care Act plans more affordable for consumers. The legislation amounts to "the biggest rollback in health care coverage in the history of the United States," said Joan Alker, a research professor and executive director and co-founder of Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families. Vice President JD Vance, who cast the tiebreaking vote July 1 to pass the Senate bill 51-50, said in social media posts the Medicaid cuts are "immaterial" compared to savings the bill will fund through bolstered immigration enforcement. The House is scheduled to consider the legislation on July 2 in advance of Trump's self-imposed July 4th deadline for his signature domestic policy legislation. How will the legislation cut Medicaid? The legislation would require states to double eligibility checks to twice a year. And states, which administer Medicaid, would have to set up systems to verify a person's employment or exemption status. The legislation requires "able-bodied" Medicaid recipients to work 80 hours a month or qualify for an exemption, such as being a student, caregiver or having a disability. The original House version limited the work requirement to low-income adults without children, but the Senate version added the work requirement to parents of children older than 13. The legislation defines "able-bodied" people as those not medically certified as physically or mentally unfit for employment. The legislation also would strip coverage from undocumented immigrants who get Medicaid through state-funded programs. Health policy experts say more frequent eligibility checks and red tape will add administrative costs and cut off people who qualify but fall through the cracks because of administrative miscues. What do hospitals and doctors think of bill? Medicaid insures 83 million low-income children and adults, according to KFF, a health policy nonprofit. That represents more than 1 in 5 Americans. Health policy experts have warned the cuts could harm rural hospitals and doctors who serve a higher percentage of people enrolled in Medicaid. The Senate bill added a $50 billion rural health care fund, double the amount that an earlier version of the legislation proposed. Still, hospitals are "deeply disappointed" the bill cleared the Senate, said Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association, a trade group. Pollack said the $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts would cause "irreparable harm to our health care system," and reduce access to care for all Americans. Hospitals are required to diagnose and stabilize anyone who visits an emergency room. Eliminating coverage of nearly 12 million Americans will "drive up uncompensated care for hospitals and health systems," Pollack said. Pollack said hospitals might be forced to cut services and staff, and patients could face longer wait times in emergency rooms. Some rural hospitals and facilities in underserved communities could close, Pollack said. Dr. Richard Besser, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said the cuts to Medicaid and a federal food assistance program "will make our country sicker, put children at risk of going hungry and make it harder for families to afford basic necessities" while delivering tax cuts. When will the Medicaid cuts take effect? Medicaid recipients won't immediately be impacted by the legislation. The bill sets a Jan. 1, 2027, deadline for states to begin twice-a-year eligibility checks and verify work or exemption status of non-disabled enrollees. However, some states already have submitted waivers to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to begin Medicaid work requirements. CMS might choose to approve the waivers and allow some states to launch Medicaid work requirements before January 2027, Alker said. A KFF survey found nearly 2 in 3 people on Medicaid are employed full or part time, and others would qualify for an exemption from the work requirement because they are caregivers or students. Just 8% were not working due to inability to find work, retirement or other reasons, KFF said. While the bill doesn't mandate work requirements before January 2027, states will likely need to plan for big changes before then, said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of the KFF program on Medicaid and the uninsured. States will need to prepare for smaller Medicaid payments from the federal government while adding the extra administrative duties of verifying an enrollee's work or volunteer status. "Some states are anticipating this reduced revenue," Tolbert said. "At the same time, they are also required to make pretty costly changes to their eligibility systems." 'Death by a trillion cuts': Health care workers lobby Republicans in Congress Johannah Alabi's days usually consist of feeding, bathing, and caring for residents at two nursing homes in Bloomfield, Conn. She said most of her patients depend on government health insurance programs, so she is concerned about what will happen to them and her job if Trump signs the bill into law. Medicaid is the primary payer for 63% of nursing home facility residents and an additional 13% rely on Medicare as their primary payer, according to KFF, a health policy nonprofit headquartered in San Francisco. 'If some of that money is going to be taken away, something has to give,' Alabi said. 'It's going to come down to the resident care. It's going to come down to the food. It's going to come down to the activities.' That's why she was inspired to join Service Employees International Union members to lobby lawmakers to vote against the bill last week. They arrived at the Capitol with signs reading, 'Death by a trillion cuts,' and wearing shirts with the message, 'Republican cuts kill.' Jennifer Woods, another SEIU member who works in the claims department at Kaiser Permanente, ran into Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, during her trip to Washington. She said she tried to explain how cuts could 'ruin people's lives' and potentially lead to some patients' deaths as she followed him through the Capitol building. 'He just shook his head and would keep going,' Woods said. 'He didn't really say anything. None of them did.'
Atlantic
6 hours ago
- Atlantic
The Biggest Anti-Abortion Victory Since ‘Dobbs'
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Amid all the news coverage of the GOP's spending-bill extravaganza—the late-night deficit debates, the strategy sessions, the hallway blanket-wearing —one piece of the package has received comparatively little attention: a provision that would block abortion clinics from receiving Medicaid funds for any of the non-abortion services they provide. During the past three years, abortion restrictions have mostly taken effect mostly in red and purple states—where legislatures have voted to enact them. But if this proposed provision passes, clinics all over the country will be affected. It would 'have a pretty devastating impact on a lot of providers,' Mary Ziegler, a legal scholar and an Atlantic contributor, told me. Some would probably close, and others would have to limit the number of patients they serve. It's 'a really big deal,' she said, with perhaps the most significant consequences for abortion access since the passage of the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funds for abortions in most cases. All of this is complicated—which helps explain the dearth of attention to the matter. But funding for independent abortion providers works like this: Clinics receive money from a variety of sources, including local donations, insurance payments, and Medicaid reimbursements. (Yes, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America receives millions in contributions every year, but most of those funds are earmarked for advocacy, Ziegler told me.) A big percentage of Planned Parenthood's patient pool relies on Medicaid. In keeping with the Hyde Amendment, providers are not reimbursed for abortions, but they do receive federal payments for other services, such as breast-cancer screenings, Pap smears, and STI testing. This new legislation would make Planned Parenthood and other clinics ineligible for any kind of Medicaid reimbursement, Ziegler said. If clinics are not paid for these services, then, in many cases, they won't be able to provide them. Maybe some clinics would be able to find funds from state legislatures or local donors to fill in the gaps, but many wouldn't. An initial version of the bill passed by the House would have blocked Medicaid funding for 10 years, but the current version, which passed the Senate earlier today, would prohibit that funding for just one year after the law's passage. (That's right—we'll all be back here again soon.) The cuts represent a pretty clear departure from President Donald Trump's 'leave it to the states' approach to abortion policy. They'd affect clinics everywhere, not just in places where Americans have grown accustomed to hearing about abortion restrictions. Most Planned Parenthood clinics at risk of closure under the bill are in states where abortion is legal, the organization says. That's partly because more blue states have recently expanded Medicaid. Up to one-third of patients at Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, for example, are on Medicaid, and reimbursement totals in the millions of dollars, PPNNE CEO Nicole Clegg told me. 'We'll work with our state leaders' and increase local fundraising efforts, she said. But it will be difficult to make up the difference. The bill's passage is part of an abortion one-two punch: Last week, the Supreme Court made it easier for states to deny Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. 'This is tremendous progress on achieving a decades-long goal that has proved elusive in the past,' Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told me in a statement about the SCOTUS decision and the GOP bill. 'This proves what we've said all along: Congress can cut Planned Parenthood's funding—and they just did,' Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America, wrote on X about the bill. 'The moral obligation is clear: If we can do it for 1 year, we must do it for good.' The events of this week also represent a slight strategy change. Reporters like me who have long covered the anti-abortion movement anticipated that, under the second Trump presidency, activists would shift their efforts in a different direction: attempting to outlaw abortion via the 1873 Comstock Act. Many who follow this debate agree that they probably still will. But so far, Trump 'hasn't really been doing a lot of what the anti-abortion movement has wanted,' Ziegler said. She wonders whether it was 'a self-conscious decision to go where they thought Republicans already were'—to work toward withholding funding, which is probably politically safer for the GOP than pursuing a relatively unpopular outright abortion ban. Next stop: the House of Representatives. Lawmakers there took up the bill today and want to make it law by Friday. But defenders of abortion access are keeping an eye out. As always, with a razor-thin Republican majority, anything could happen. A big, bad, very ugly bill Jonathan Chait: Congressional Republicans didn't have to do this. A classic childhood pastime is fading. Today's News President Donald Trump visited ' Alligator Alcatraz,' a makeshift migrant-detention center in the Florida Everglades, and said that he wants to see more detention centers in 'many states.' Trump wrote in a social-media post that the Department of Government Efficiency might need to reexamine government subsidies for Elon Musk's businesses. Zohran Mamdani officially won New York City's Democratic mayoral primary by 12 points. Evening Read The Birth-Rate Crisis Isn't as Bad as You've Heard—It's Worse By Marc Novicoff First, the bad news: Global fertility is falling fast. The aging populations of rich countries are relying on ever fewer workers to support their economy, dooming those younger generations to a future of higher taxes, higher debt, or later retirement—or all three … By about 2084, according to the gold-standard United Nations 'World Population Prospects,' the global population will officially begin its decline. Rich countries will all have become like Japan, stagnant and aging. And the rest of the world will have become old before it ever got the chance to become rich. Sorry, did I say 'bad news'? That was actually the good news, based on estimates that turned out to be far too rosy. More From The Atlantic Watch. F1 (out now in theaters) threads the nitty-gritty details of Formula One racing into a traditional underdog drama, David Sims writes. Read. Soft Core, by Brittany Newell, is a noirish novel set in the world of strip clubs and BDSM dungeons that ventures beyond titillation and into the daily grind, Lily Burana writes.
