04/27/2023
This is what patients with a brain injury are up against with a poorly educated medical profession in the recovery and rehabilitation of the anoxic brain.
RE: Cognitive policy for anoxic encephalopathy
Throughout this document, the policy refers to "quality of life". You will note that the studies BC found by the time this policy came into existence were insufficient to make a determination of efficacy of cognitive therapy for post-encephalopathy - studies no more than 6 months. The majority of the medical profession in charge of decisions for patients with brain injuries is not trained in recovery of the anoxic brain. The observation of the patients in facilities is not done by anyone with experience in brain injury recovery and rehabilitation. In nursing homes, the observers may be therapists whose experience is not in anoxic brain injury recovery. Doctors make decisions based on observations of the nursing staff, usually an LPN.
What is equally frightening, according to Medicare regulations, the doctor is not required to see the patient immediately upon admittance. The administrator in the first nursing home told me the doctor had 60 days to see the patient the first time. That's a long time to be making decisions on behalf of a brain injury patient, prescribing medicine and daily activities, for someone the doctor has never seen.
Brenna was a brittle diabetic from the age of six. A nursing home is a terrifying place to be for anyone with a critical health issue even without a brain injury. When I expressed my concern that Brenna's diabetes was not being properly monitored and asked that staff use Brenna's personal glucometer because it was better, the administrator, in front of me, called the nurses' station and ordered them to use only the facility glucometer.
The facility glucometer was used all over the facility and not readily available when needed for Brenna. They had to hunt for it. When I researched the brand, it was provided free with multiple boxes of test strips. Brenna's personal glucometer was the best on the market at the time.
Incidentally, I fell and cracked my head in the second nursing home. I do not know how long I laid on the floor before I came to and called for help on my phone. At the hospital, I was admitted to ICU. Someone made a decision, not the neurosurgeon, that I would have brain surgery the next day. Who made that call? He was a general surgeon in charge of ICU.
When the neurosurgeon came in the next morning, I was livid. He noted that I had asked for no pain meds. I explained about Brenna and told him I needed to get out of there to be with her. He said he had examined my scans and saw no reason to operate. The spot the ICU doc saw? No bigger than the head of a pin, probably a sign of aging.
Cognitive Rehabilitation (bcidaho.com)Regulatory Status Cognitive rehabilitation is not subject to regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. [Pg3]
Post-encephalitis
The 2013 updated ACRM systematic review also evaluated cognitive rehabilitation for post-encephalitis cognitive deficits. Eight identified studies were considered poor quality evidence and insufficient for forming conclusions. [Pg 24]
Section Summary: Other Cognitive Deficit Conditions Systematic reviews of cognitive rehabilitation for a number of conditions, including epilepsy, ASD, spectrum disorder, post-encephalopathy, and cancer, have generally concluded that there is no strong evidence supporting the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation. Randomized trials of cognitive rehabilitation have numerous methodologic flaws that preclude strong conclusions about its efficacy. [Pg 29]
For individuals who have cognitive deficits due to epilepsy, ASD, post-encephalopathy, or cancer who receive cognitive rehabilitation delivered by a qualified professional, the evidence includes RCTs, nonrandomized comparison studies, and case series. Relevant outcomes are functional outcomes and quality of life. The quantity of studies for these conditions is much less than that for the other cognitive rehabilitation indications. Systematic reviews generally have not supported the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation for these conditions. Relevant RCTs have had methodologic limitations, most often very short lengths of follow-up, which do not permit strong conclusions about efficacy. The evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome. [Pg 30]
Blue Cross-Blue Shield - National corporate policy
Current Policy Effective Date: 3/1/23 (See policy history boxes for previous effective dates) MEDICAL POLICY - COGNITIVE REHABILITATION (bcbsm.com)
This policy was originally based on a 1997 TEC Assessment. The Assessment addressed a broad range of patient indications resulting from neurological insults, including traumatic brain injury, stroke, post-encephalopathy, and aging (including Alzheimer’s disease). Eighteen controlled trials were reviewed, primarily focusing on stroke and traumatic brain injury. No controlled trials were available that specifically addressed the remaining patient indications. No clear answer regarding the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation emerged from the assessment. The evidence was conflicting either because of study design, low power to detect differences, or variation in treatment. The assessment concluded that data were inadequate in the published peer-reviewed literature to validate the effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation as either an isolated component or one component of a multi-modal rehabilitation program. [Pg 3]
A Mother’s Afterthoughts [Pg 95]
A 2012 report for Blue Cross of Idaho reviewed research for cognitive therapies for “patient indications resulting from neurological insults, including traumatic brain injury, stroke, post-encephalopathy, and aging (including Alzheimer’s disease)”. While the panel reviewed 18 controlled trials that focused on strokes and TBI, they found no controlled trials available for the other indications.[Post-encephalopathy][1]
[1]Blue Cross of Idaho (2012): Cognitive therapy policies. Cognitive Rehabilitation