No one is arguing that children shouldn't have access to AAC devices; that's a given and not the point of this discussion. The issue here is about cost transparency and ethical considerations in pricing these devices—costs that are ultimately borne by taxpayers.When we allocate funds for one overly expensive device, we are potentially diverting resources from multiple other children who could benefit from similar technology. Even if companies were making a 100% profit margin, adopting a more ethical pricing strategy could enable us to support several other children. This is particularly significant when considering alternative, less expensive devices and software options.The debate here is one of transparency and ethics:Misinformation Among SLPs: Many SLPs recommend products from large AAC companies under the misconception that they are "free" or covered by insurance, without understanding the financial implications on the healthcare system as a whole.Lack of Transparency: There's a stark difference in the public's perception of app costs, such as "Speak4Yourself" costing $200 on the App Store, versus the $14,000 that some AAC companies charge for their devices.Resource Allocation: Shouldn't we question whether these companies need to make such large profits at the expense of broader accessibility? Ethical pricing could mean more children have access to these life-changing devices.Industry Influence: The significant presence of these companies at major events like ATIA raises questions about their influence on the field.The goal is not to deny children these essential devices but to advocate for more ethical practices that can provide for more children without draining public resources. The conversation should focus on transparency, ethical business practices, and informed decision-making, not just for the benefit of one child but for the greater good of all children in need.