Jimmo v. Sebelius, No. 5:11-cv-17 (D. Vt.)

Jan 24, 2013 · U.S. District Court, District of Vermont

A nationwide class action settlement, approved by the court in January 2013, required CMS to clarify that Medicare's "skilled care" coverage standard for nursing and therapy services never required the patient to be expected to improve — maintaining a patient's condition, or slowing an otherwise-expected decline, can qualify too, as long as the skilled judgment of a nurse or therapist is genuinely needed to do it safely and effectively.

Source.CMS — Jimmo v. Sebelius Settlement Agreement (D. Vt., approved Jan. 24, 2013)

What was decided

A nationwide class action settlement, approved by the court in January 2013, required CMS to clarify that Medicare's "skilled care" coverage standard for nursing and therapy services never required the patient to be expected to improve — maintaining a patient's condition, or slowing an otherwise-expected decline, can qualify too, as long as the skilled judgment of a nurse or therapist is genuinely needed to do it safely and effectively.CMS — Jimmo v. Sebelius Settlement Agreement (D. Vt., approved Jan. 24, 2013)

What it means for your appeal

"Your parent has plateaued" or "there's been no improvement" is not, by itself, a valid reason to deny skilled nursing, home health, or outpatient therapy — Medicare's own coverage manuals were rewritten after this settlement specifically to say so.

The real question a redetermination or reconsideration request needs to answer isn't whether the patient got better — it's whether the specific service required a nurse's or therapist's training to perform safely and effectively, whether that's improving the patient's condition, maintaining it, or slowing its decline.

CMS committed to an education campaign and manual revisions as part of this settlement (not a new court ruling on the underlying law) — citing the settlement and the resulting manual language directly is often more persuasive than citing the statute alone, since it shows the contractor's own manual already says this.

This settlement is a nationwide class action, not a one-off ruling — it binds CMS's own coverage policy for every Medicare beneficiary nationally, not just people in Vermont, which is part of why citing it directly tends to carry weight with a reviewer who may not otherwise recognize the case name.

Because the settlement addressed a widespread, systemic misapplication of the coverage standard rather than one beneficiary's individual case, it's worth citing even in a first-level redetermination request, not saved for a later appeal level — the standard it corrects applies at every level of the claims ladder.

How CaseWhy Appeals' letters already use this

The redetermination and reconsideration letter templates already cite the Jimmo-clarified "maintain or slow decline" standard directly when the contested item is a claims-ladder skilled-care denial.

Sources

Related

Not sure what applies to your case?

Upload your denial letter and get a free, plain-language explanation with your real deadline.

By CaseWhy Appeals editorial. See how this content is produced. Not legal advice. Not affiliated with or endorsed by Medicare, CMS, or any health plan. A product of CaseWhy LLC.