As improvements in neuroscience have enabled a better understanding of disorders of consciousness as well as methods to treat them, a hurdle that has become all too prevalent is the denial of coverage for treatment and rehabilitation services. In 2011, a settlement emerged from a Vermont District Court case, Jimmo v. Sebelius, which was brought to stop the use of an “improvement standard” that required tangible progress over an identifiable period of time for Medicare coverage of services. While the use of this standard can have deleterious effects on those with many chronic conditions, it is especially burdensome for those in the minimally conscious state (MCS), where improvements are unpredictable and often not manifested through repeatable overt behaviors. Though the focus of this paper is on the challenges of brain injury and the minimally conscious state, which an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 individuals suffer from in the United States, the post-Jimmo arguments presented can and should have a broad impact as envisioned by the plaintiffs who brought the case on behalf of multiple advocacy groups representing patients with a range of chronic care conditions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
J. J.Fins, “Rethinking Disorders of Consciousness: New Research and Its Implications,”Hastings Center Report39, no. 2 (2005): 22-24, at 22.
2.
J. J.Fins, Rights Come to Mind: Brain Injury, Ethics and the Struggle for Consciousness (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015); J. T. Giacino et al., “Disorders of Consciousness after Acquired Brain Injury: The State of the Science,” Nature Reviews Neurology 10 (2014): 99-114, at 108.
3.
Jimmo v. Sebelius, No. 5:11-CV-17, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123743 (D. Vt. Oct. 25, 2011).
4.
Id., at *5.
5.
42 U.S.C. §1395y(a)(1)(A) (2006).
6.
Jimmo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123743, at *61.
7.
Id., at *62, *64.
8.
Id., at *66–67.
9.
Id., at *4–5, *25, *40.
10.
Fins, supra note 2.
11.
J. T.Giacino, “The Minimally Conscious State: Definition and Diagnostic Criteria,”Neurology58, no. 3 (2002): 349–353.
12.
B.Jennett, The Vegetative State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002): at 127, 198.
13.
B.Jennett and F.Plum, “Persistent Vegetative State after Brain Damage: A Syndrome in Search of a Name,”The Lancet1, no. 7753 (1972): 734-737, at 734.
14.
C.Schnakers, “Diagnostic Accuracy of the Vegetative and Minimally Conscious State: Clinical Consensus Versus Standardized Neurobehavioral Assessment,”BMC Neurology9, no. 35 (2009): 1-5, at 3.
15.
K.Andrews, “Misdiagnosis of the Vegetative State: Retrospective Study in a Rehabilitation Unit,”British Medical Journal313, no. 7048 (1996): 13-16; N. L. Childs, W. N. Mercer, and H. W. Childs, “Accuracy of Diagnosis of Persistent Vegetative State,” Neurology 43, no. 8 (1993): 1456-1467; F. C. Wilson et al., “Vegetative State and Minimally Responsive Patients – Regional Survey, Long-Term Case Outcomes and Service Recommendations,” NeuroRehabilitation 17, no. 3 (2002): 231–236.
16.
J. J.Fins, “Constructing an Ethical Stereotaxy for Severe Brain Injury: Balancing Risks, Benefits and Access,”Nature Reviews Neuroscience4 (2003): 323-327, at 325.
17.
Fins, supra note 1, at 22.
18.
J. J.Fins, “Neuroethics, Neuroimaging, and Disorders of Consciousness: Promise or Peril?”Transactions of the American Clinical & Climatological Association122 (2010): 336-346, at 337.
19.
The Multi-Society Task Force on PVS, “Medical Aspects of the Persistent Vegetative State,”New England Journal of Medicine330, no. 1 (1994): 1499-1508, at 1505; Jennett and Plum, supra note 12.
20.
N. D.Zasler, “Posttraumatic Pain Disorders: Medical Assessment and Management,” in N.Zasler, D.Katz, and R.Zafonte, eds., Brain Injury Medicine: Principles and Practice (New York: Demos Publishers, 2007).
21.
J. D.Banja and J. J.Fins, “Ethics in Brain Injury Medicine,” in N.Zasler, D.Katz, and R.Zafonte, eds., Brain Injury Medicine: Principles and Practice (New York: Demos Publishers, 2007).
22.
N. D.Schiff, “Behavioral Improvements with Thalamic Stimulation after Severe Traumatic Brain Injury,”Nature448 (2007): 600-603, at 601.
23.
J. JFins and J.Hersh, “Solitary Advocates: The Severely Brain Injured and Their Surrogates,” in B.Hoffman, eds., Transforming Health Care from Below: Patients as Actors in U.S. Health Policy (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2011): 21-42; J. J. Fins, “Disorders of Consciousness and Disordered Care: Families, Caregivers and Narratives of Necessity,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 94, no. 10 (2013): 1934–1939.
24.
Fins and Hersh, supra note 23; J. J.Fins, “Disorders of Consciousness and Disordered Care,”supra note 23.
25.
Fins, supra note 2.
26.
Jimmo v. Sebelius, No. 5:11-CV-17, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123743 (D. Vt. Oct. 25, 2011), at *4–5.
27.
Id., at *5.
28.
Id., at *5–6.
29.
J. E.Gladieux and M.Basile, “Jimmo and the Improvement Standard: Implementing Medicare Coverage through Regulations, Policy Manuals and Other Guidance,”American Journal of Law and Medicine40, no. 1 (2014): 7-25, at 11.
30.
Jimmo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123743, at *61.
31.
Id., at *59–60.
32.
Id., at *61–65.
33.
Id., at *66.
34.
Settlement Agreement at 25, Jimmo v. Sebelius, No. 5:11-CV-17-CR (D. Vt. Oct. 25, 2011).
Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, supra note 37, § 40.1.1. Though the use of “reasonable and necessary” is ambiguous in regard to numerous coverage determinations and not simply ones related to brain injuries, those considerations are beyond the scope of this paper.
40.
Id.
41.
J.Whyte, “Medical Complications During Inpatient Rehabilitation among Patients with Traumatic Disorders of Consciousness,”Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation94, no. 10 (2013): 1877-1883, at 1881-1882; Giacino et al., supra note 2, at 107.
42.
Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, supra note 42, § 40.1.1.
43.
M. H.Lammi, “The Minimally Conscious State and Recovery Potential: A Follow-Up Study 2-5 Years after Traumatic Brain Injury,”Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation86, no. 4 (2005): 746-754, at 751–752.
44.
Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, supra note 42, § 110.2.
45.
Id., at § 110.3.
46.
J. J.Fins, “The Ethics of Measuring and Modulating Consciousness: The Imperative of Minding Time,”Progress in Brain Research177 (2009): 371-382, at 379.
47.
N. D.Schiff and J. J.Fins, “Hope for ‘Comatose’ Patients,”Cerebrum5, no. 4 (2003): 7-24; J. J. Fins, “Lessons from the Injured Brain: A Bioethicist in the Vineyards of Neuroscience,” Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics 18, no. 1 (2009): 7-13, at 10; Fins, supra note 2.
48.
R.Blake, The Day Donny Herbert Woke Up: A True Story (New York: Harmony Books, 2007); J. J. Fins, “A Review of The Day Donny Herbert Woke Up: A True Story by Rich Blake,” JAMA 299, no. 8 (2008): 959–960.
49.
J. J.Fins, “Wait, Wait…Don’t Tell Me: Tuning in the Injured Brain,”Journal of the American Medical Association Neurology69, no. 2 (2012): 158-160, at 159.
50.
Schnakers et al., supra note 14, at 3.
51.
J. J.Fins, “Neuroethics and Neuroimaging: Moving toward Transparency,”American Journal of Bioethics8, no. 9 (2008): 46-52, at 48; J. J. Fins et al., “The Minimally Conscious State: A Diagnosis in Search of an Epidemiology,” Archives of Neurology 64, no. 10 (2007): 1400-1405, at 1400.
Although, technically, their adoption may need to be articulated in the context of proving that an intervention or treatment program will improve, or maintain, an individual’s medical condition.
61.
Gladieux and Basile, supra note 34, at 12.
62.
J. T.Giacino, “Placebo-Controlled Trail of Amantadine for Severe Traumatic Brain Injury,”New England Journal of Medicine366, no. 9 (2012): 819-826, at 823.
63.
J.Whyte, “Zolpidem and Restoration of Consciousness,”American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation93, no. 2 (2014): 101–113.
64.
N. D.Schiff, “Schiff et al. Reply,”Nature452 (2008): E1-E2, at E1.
65.
J. J.Fins, “Deep Brain Stimulation,” in B.Jennings, ed., Encyclopedia of Bioethics, 4th ed., Vol. II (Farmington Hills: Mac-Millan Reference, 2014): at 817-823; N. D. Schiff, J. T. Giacino, and J. J. Fins, “Deep Brain Stimulation, Neuroethics and the Minimally Conscious State: Moving beyond Proof of Principle,” Archives of Neurology 66, no. 6 (2009): 697-702, at 701.
66.
Fins, “Neuroethics and Neuroimaging,”supra note 56, at 48; Giacino et al., supra note 2, at 99.
67.
P. B.Forgacs, “Preservation of Electroencephalographic Organization in Patients with Impaired Consciousness and Imaging-Based Evidence of Command Following,”Annals of Neurology76, no. 6 (2014): 869-879, at 870.
68.
D.Cruse, “Bedside Detection of Awareness in the Vegetative State: A Cohort Study,”The Lancet378, no. 9809 (2011): 2088-2094, at 2091.
69.
A. M.Goldfine, “Reanalysis of ‘Bedside Detection of Awareness in the Vegetative State: A Cohort Study,’”The Lancet381, no. 9863 (2013): 289-291; D. Cruse et al., “Reanalysis of ‘Bedside Detection of Awareness in the Vegetative State: A Cohort Study’ – Authors’ Reply,” The Lancet 381, no. 9863 (2013): 291–292.
70.
J. J.Fins and M.Schachter, “Investigators, Industry, and the Heuristic Device: Ethics, Patent Law, and Clinical Innovation,”Accountability in Research8, no. 3 (2001): 219-233; J. J. Fins, “Deep Brain Stimulation, Free Markets and the Scientific Commons: Is It Time to Revisit the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980?” Neuromodulation 13, no. 3 (2010): 153-159, at 154; J. J. Fins, G. S. Dorfman, and J. J. Pancrazio, “Challenges to Deep Brain Stimulation: A Pragmatic Response to Ethical, Fiscal, and Regulatory Concerns,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1265 (2012): 80–90.
71.
J. J.Fins and N. D.Schiff, “Conflicts of Interest in Deep Brain Stimulation Research and the Ethics of Transparency,”Journal of Clinical Ethics21, no. 2 (2010): 125-132; J. J. Fins et al., “Ethical Guidance for the Management of Conflicts of Interest for Researchers, Engineers and Clinicians Engaged in the Development of Therapeutic Deep Brain Stimulation,” Journal of Neural Engineering 8, no. 3 (2011): 1–6.
72.
J. J.Fins, “A Proposed Ethical Framework for Interventional Cognitive Neuroscience: A Consideration of Deep Brain Stimulation in Impaired Consciousness,”Neurological Research22, no. 3 (2000): 273–278.
73.
J. J.Fins, “Neuropsychiatric Deep Brain Stimulation Research and the Misuse of the Humanitarian Device Exemption,”Health Affairs30, no. 2 (2011): 302-311, at 303.
74.
J. J.Fins and Z. E.Shapiro, “Deep Brain Stimulation, Brain Maps & Personalized Medicine: Lessons from the Human Genome Project,”Brain Topography27, no. 1 (2013): 55-62, at 58.
75.
Fins and Hersh, supra note 23; A.Suppes and J. J.Fins, “Surrogate Expectations in Severe Brain Injury,”Brain Injury27, no. 10 (2013): 1141-1147, at 1141; A. Suppes and J. J. Fins, “How Relationships Shape Medical Decision Making,” paper presented at the International Association of Relationship Research, Chicago, July 2012.
76.
J. J.Fins, “Deep Brain Stimulation: Calculating the True Costs of Surgical Innovation,”Virtual Mentor12, no. 2 (2010): 114-118, at 115.
77.
D. J.Strauss, “Life Expectancy of Children in Vegetative and Minimally Conscious States,”Pediatric Neurology23, no. 4 (2000): 312-319, at 316; Fins et al., supra note 51, at 1401.
78.
One in every 66 children is diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, “Autism Spectrum Disorder Data & Statistics,”available at <http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html> (last visited February 23, 2016).
79.
In treating autism spectrum disorders, early intervention is particularly important. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, “Autism Spectrum Disorder Treatment,”available at <http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/treatment.html> (last visited February 23, 2016).
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, “Our Commitment to Supporting Individuals on the Autism Spectrum and Their Families,”available at <http://www.hhs.gov/autism/factsheet_autism_support.html> (last visited February 23, 2016).
82.
R.Nakase-Richardson, “Longitudinal Outcome of Patients with Disordered Consciousness in the NIDRR TBI Model Systems Programs,”Journal of Neurotrauma29, no. 1 (2012): 59-65, at 63.
83.
J. J.Fins, “Minds Apart: Severe Brain Injury,” in M.Freeman, ed., Law and Neuroscience, Current Legal Issues (Oxford University Press, 2010): 367–384.
