Clinical UM Guideline


Subject: Cognitive Rehabilitation
Guideline #: CG-REHAB-11 Publish Date:    09/20/2018
Status: New Last Review Date:    07/26/2018


This document addresses cognitive rehabilitation.

Cognitive rehabilitation refers to therapy programs which aid persons in the management of specific problems in perception, memory, thinking and problem solving.  Skills are practiced and strategies are taught to help improve function and/or compensate for remaining deficits.

Note: For additional information, please see the following:

Clinical Indications

Medically Necessary:

Cognitive rehabilitation is considered medically necessary in individuals with significantly impaired cognitive function after traumatic brain injury (TBI) or stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) if all of the following criteria are met:

  1. The service must be prescribed by the attending physician as part of a written plan of care; and
  2. The service(s) is so inherently complex that it can be safely and effectively performed only by a qualified licensed professional such as a physician, licensed psychologist, speech therapist or occupational therapist; and
  3. The individual is capable of actively participating in a cognitive rehabilitation program, as evidenced by a mental status demonstrating responsiveness to verbal or visual stimuli and ability to follow commands and process and retain information; and
  4. The individual’s mental and physical condition prior to the injury indicates there is significant potential for improvement (for example, a complete recovery of pre-injury memory, language or reasoning skills is not required, but there must be a reasonable expectation of improvement that is of practical value to the individual, measured against the individual’s condition at the start of the rehabilitation program), and the individual must have no lasting or major treatment impediment that prevents progress, such as severe dementia; and
  5. The individual is expected to show measurable functional improvement within a predetermined timeframe (depending on the underlying diagnosis/medical condition) from the start of cognitive rehabilitation therapy. Goals and expected timeframes should be addressed prior to the onset of treatment; and
  6. The treating physician should review the treatment plan periodically to assess the continued need for participation and documented objective evidence of progress.


Not Medically Necessary:

Cognitive rehabilitation is considered not medically necessary for other etiologies of impaired cognitive function, including, but not limited to dementia, Parkinson's disease or anoxic brain injury.


The following codes for treatments and procedures applicable to this document are included below for informational purposes. Inclusion or exclusion of a procedure, diagnosis or device code(s) does not constitute or imply member coverage or provider reimbursement policy. Please refer to the member's contract benefits in effect at the time of service to determine coverage or non-coverage of these services as it applies to an individual member.




Therapeutic interventions that focus on cognitive function (eg, attention, memory, reasoning, executive function, problem solving, and/or pragmatic functioning) and compensatory strategies to manage the performance of an activity (eg, managing time or schedules, initiating, organizing and sequencing tasks), direct (one-on-one) patient contact






Development of cognitive skills to improve attention, memory, problem solving (includes compensatory training), direct (one-on-one) patient contact, each 15 minutes



ICD-10 Diagnosis



Nontraumatic subarachnoid, intracerebral, other and unspecified intracranial hemorrhage


Cerebral infarction


Cognitive deficits following nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage


Cognitive deficits following nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage


Cognitive deficits following other nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage


Cognitive deficits following cerebral infarction


Intracranial injury (code range with 6th character 1-6 and 9 and 7th character A, D or S) 


Unspecified injury of head


Personal history of traumatic brain injury

Discussion/General Information

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “a traumatic brain injury is caused by a bump, blow or jolt to the head or a penetrating head injury that disrupts the normal function of the brain.”  These injuries are principally the result of motor vehicle accidents, violence, sports injuries, and falls.  Individuals who have suffered a TBI often experience residual impairments affecting motor control, communication skills, social behavior and cognition.  These deficits may result in a variety of alterations in the individual, including but not limited to changes in memory, language, attention and concentration, visual processing, reasoning, and problem-solving, as well as emotional and behavioral control.  Psychosocial changes may include high levels of anxiety, depression and pervasive personal loss (for example, interpersonal relationships, social supports, employment, and leisure activity). 

Cognitive rehabilitation (CR) is distinguished from occupational therapy, which describes rehabilitation that is directed at specific environments (that is, home or work).  In contrast, CR consists of tasks designed to develop the memory, language and reasoning skills that can then be applied to those specific environments. CR may be performed by a physician, psychologist, or a speech or occupational therapist. 

As with other rehabilitation services (for example, physical, speech or occupational therapy), CR services may undergo periodic review to assess how the individual is progressing and to determine the expected length of time CR will be required.  It is generally expected that a treatment plan will include, but is not limited to, documentation that the individual is an acceptable candidate for CR, expected outcomes, expected duration of therapy and evidence of progress toward stated goals as demonstrated by objective functional measurements.  In general, the documentation should provide evidence that there is progress towards reasonable, measurable goals, and that CR continues to be appropriate.  Examples of documentation that may result in therapy not being approved or being discontinued, include but are not necessarily limited to the following:

CR has been proposed as a treatment approach for individuals with cognitive defects, including, but not limited to those who suffer from Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis or have experienced a TBI or stroke.

Traumatic Brain Injury
While CR has been evaluated in a wide variety of indications, the bulk of the literature has focused on traumatic brain injury and stroke.  The evidence in the published medical literature is difficult to assess due to variability in study design, low power to detect difference or variation in treatment.  Variation in treatment is related to the heterogeneous nature of the treated population; specific CR interventions are typically targeted to the specific deficit.  Given these limitations, the published data provides the most support for effectiveness of CR in individuals with traumatic brain injury.  For example, Powell and colleagues (2002) reported on the results of a randomized controlled trial of 112 participants with severe traumatic brain injury.  This study suggested that a community-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation program delivered within an individualized contractual goal setting framework is effective in improving functional ability and independence.  Significantly greater improvement was realized by individuals receiving the comprehensive program compared to those receiving a single therapist visit consisting of information only.  In another randomized study of military personnel with a history of traumatic brain injury, Salazar and colleagues (2000) reported an improvement in outcomes with CR in those who were unconscious for more than 1 hour at the time of injury.  As noted in the description, components of treatment vary according to the study and according to the individual.  The duration of therapy also varies, with outpatient, community-based controlled studies reporting between 27 and 32 weeks of therapy, with a variable number of sessions per week.  As with other rehabilitative interventions, goal setting with a demonstration of improvement toward the identified goal is an important aspect of determining the medical necessity of ongoing therapy.

Cicerone and colleagues (2011) updated clinical recommendations for CR for individuals with TBI and stroke, based on a systematic review of the literature from 2003 through 2008.  A total of 112 studies were included and fully reviewed.  The authors found substantial evidence to support interventions for executive function, attention, memory, social communication skills, and for comprehensive-holistic neuropsychologic rehabilitation after TBI.  For individuals receiving CR following a stroke, the authors concluded that the evidence supports visuospatial rehabilitation after right hemisphere stroke and interventions for aphasia and apraxia after left hemisphere stroke.  The authors also concluded that based on the results of the current meta-analysis in addition to prior reviews, “there is now sufficient information to support evidence-based protocols and implement empirically-supported treatments for cognitive disability after TBI and stroke.”

In 2017, a Cochrane Review was published to assess the effects of CR on improving occupational outcomes in individuals with TBI (Kumar, 2017). The search identified nine studies (six very low to low-quality evidence and three moderate-quality evidence) with a total of 790 participants. Occupational outcomes that were evaluated included return to work, independence in daily activities, community integration, and quality of life. CR strategy (cognitive didactic versus functional experiential) was also evaluated. Due to the lack of high-quality evidence, the use of CR in improving occupational outcomes in individuals with TBI is not supported and further trials are needed. 

Alzheimer’s Disease
A Cochrane Review evaluated the effectiveness of cognitive training and CR for mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia.  The evidence reviewed included 11 trials of cognitive training and a single trial of CR.  The authors found no evidence for the efficacy of cognitive training to improve cognitive functioning, mood or activities of daily living in individuals with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease or vascular dementia.  The single trial of CR provided preliminary indications of the potential benefits of individual CR to improve activities of daily living in individuals with mild Alzheimer’s disease.  The authors recommend that more high-quality trials of both cognitive training and CR are needed in order to establish the efficacy of cognitive training and CR for individuals with early-stage dementia (Bahar-Fuchs, 2013).

Tarraga and colleagues (2006) carried out a single-blind, randomized study to evaluate the effectiveness of an interactive multimedia internet based system (IMIS) which provided cognitive stimulation to individuals with Alzheimer’s disease.  Forty-six (46) mildly impaired individuals suspected of having Alzheimer’s disease continued receiving cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) during the 24-week study period.  The participants were divided into three groups: (1) those who received 3 weekly, 20-minute sessions of IMIS in addition to 8 hours per day of an integrated psychostimulation program (IPP); (2) those who received only IPP sessions; and (3) those who received only ChEI treatment.  At 12 weeks, the participants treated with both IMIS and IPP had improved outcome scores on the ADAS-Cog and MMSE, which was sustained through 24 weeks.  The individuals treated with IPP alone had better outcome than those treated with ChEIs alone, but the effects were attenuated after 24 weeks.  All of the participants demonstrated improved scores in all of the IMIS individual tasks, attaining higher levels of difficulty in all cases.  Although the results suggest that the IMIS program provided an improvement above and beyond that seen with IPP alone, the researchers acknowledged that the efficacy of the IMIS-type program needs to be evaluated in larger, more diverse populations in order to understand factors that may modify the response as well as to establish its long-term (greater than 1 year) effects.

Barker-Collo and colleagues (2009) evaluated the effectiveness of Attention Process Training (APT) in improving attention and broader outcomes in stroke survivors 6 months after stroke.  In this single-blinded clinical trial, 78 stroke survivors were randomized to receive either APT or standard rehabilitative care.  The participants were evaluated in four aspects of attention: sustained, selective, divided, and alternating, as well as the auditory and visual aspects of attention.  The study participants were randomly assigned to receive standard care plus up to 30 hours of APT or standard care alone.  At 6 months the participants who had APT had an average improvement of 2.49 standard deviations higher than the standard care participants on “full-scale attention scores.”  The researchers acknowledged that APT appears to be a viable and effective means of improving attention deficits in stoke victims, but cautioned that further studies with larger samples and longer follow-up periods are needed to identify the characteristic of those individuals most likely to benefit from APT. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense clinical practice guidelines on the management of stroke rehabilitation (endorsed by the Stroke Council of the American Heart Association and the American Stoke Association) recommend that individuals recovering from stroke be assessed for cognitive deficits and that cognitive retraining be provided for those with attention deficits, visual neglect, memory deficits and executive function and problem-solving difficulties.  The authors of the publication concluded that based on the 2005 review by Cicerone and colleagues:

There is support for cognitive remediation of deficits in both the acute and post-acute phases of recovery from stroke and TBI, although some of the improvements were relatively small and task specific.  Some benefits were specific to the TBI population, although it seems reasonable to extend some of these results to the stroke population (Management of Stroke Rehabilitation Working Group, 2010).

Bowen and colleagues (2013) updated a previously published systematic review that evaluated the effectiveness of CR for spatial neglect following stroke.  The 2013 update was based on 23 randomized controlled trials involving a total of 628 participants.  The authors concluded that the effectiveness of CR for increasing independence and reducing the disabling effects of neglect remains unproven.  However, the authors found some very limited evidence that CR may have an immediate effect on performance of tests of neglect.  The authors recommended that “until robust evidence is available, clinical practice should follow national clinical guidelines and clinicians are strongly encouraged to participate in high quality trials.”

In another updated systematic review, the researchers evaluated CR for executive dysfunction in adults with stroke or other adult nonprogressive acquired brain damage.  A total of 16 randomized controlled trials (n=660; 234 stroke, 395 traumatic brain injury, 31 other acquired brain injury) were included in pooled analyses.  Six of the included studies (333 participants) compared CR with placebo or no treatment; none reported the primary outcome measure and data from four studies did not demonstrate a statistically significant effect of CR on secondary outcomes.  Ten studies (448 subjects) compared an experimental CR method with a standard CR method.  Only two of these studies (82 subjects) reported the primary outcome; no statistically significant effect was found.  Data from eight studies (404 participants) demonstrated no significant effect on the secondary outcomes.  Three studies (134 subjects) compared CR with sensorimotor therapy.  Of these studies, none reported the primary outcome, and data were only available relating to the secondary outcomes from one of the studies.  The authors summarized their findings as follows:

There is insufficient high-quality evidence to reach any generalized conclusions about the effect of cognitive rehabilitation on executive function or independence in activities of daily living.  Further high-quality research comparing cognitive rehabilitation with nonintervention, placebo, or sensorimotor interventions is recommended (Chung, 2013).

Gillen and colleagues (2015) conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature to determine which interventions are effective in improving occupational performance after stroke.  A total of 46 publications were examined.  Interventions for the following impairments were assessed: apraxia, attention deficits, general cognitive deficits, executive dysfunction, memory loss, visual field deficits and unilateral neglect.  The authors concluded that the available evidence suggests that a variety of interventions may lead to the improved occupational performance of adults with cognitive impairment after stroke.  However, the authors also acknowledged that the review had several limitations including but not limited to the fact that many of the studies examined had small sample sizes, and many studies applied performance measures inconsistently.  Additionally, several studies used ADL questionnaires or simulation of ADLs as opposed to actual observation of ADLs, while other studies assessed heterogeneous groups such as individuals with TBI and stroke.  The authors also pointed out that the long-term effects of the interventions had not been well studied and “all interventions should be systematically reviewed in the future to determine how efficacious they are in improving occupational performance.”

Several factors make it difficult to assess the clinical utility of CR for individuals who have suffered a cerebrovascular accident.  Published studies have been limited by small study sizes, variability in study design, heterogeneous injuries presented by each individual’s stroke and by the variety of provided interventions.  Specialty communities involved in caring for individuals after a stroke have developed a clear consensus that CR may provide significant benefit to individuals with cognitive deficits after a stroke.  Skilled CR services may thus be medically necessary for selected individuals who have suffered a stroke, are able to participate in therapy, are expected to have a significant potential for improvement, and who demonstrate improvement in the timeframe anticipated by their treatment plan.

Parkinson’s Disease
Sammers and colleagues (2006) examined the effect of cognitive training on cognitive performance of 26 individuals with Parkinson’s disease (PD).  Half of the subjects participated in a cognitive training regimen, while the other subjects received standard treatment.  The results demonstrated improved performance of the group with cognitive treatment in two executive tasks after the training period, while no improvement was seen in the group receiving standard treatment. 

In 2018, Díez-Cirarda and colleagues published an 18-month longitudinal follow-up study aimed to evaluate the long-term effect of CR on cognitive, behavioral, and neuroimaging outcomes in 15 subjects with PD. The authors found a significant increase in cognitive performance, decreased functional disability, increased brain functional connectivity and activation at 18 months compared with pre-treatment (p<0.05, FDR).

While the results of these studies are encouraging and suggest that individuals with PD might benefit from CR, larger, randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up periods are needed before conclusions regarding its effectiveness can be drawn.  It also remains to be seen if the therapy results in improvement in the everyday life of the individuals. 

Multiple Sclerosis
In the study completed by Flavia and colleagues (2010), researchers evaluated the efficacy of a computer-based intensive training program of attention, information processing and executive functions in individuals with clinically-stable relapsing-remitting (RR) multiple sclerosis (MS) and low levels of disability.  Examinations were performed on 150 individuals with RR-MS who scored less than or equal to 4 on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS).  Information processing, working memory and attention were assessed using the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT) and executive function evaluated by the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST).  Individuals with one or more clinical exacerbations in the previous year, loss of visual acuity, ongoing major psychiatric disorder, substance abuse or a Mini Mental State Examination score of less than 24 were excluded from the study.  Twenty clinically-stable subjects with RR MS were included in the study and were casually assigned by a blinded psychologist to either a study group (n=10) or a control group (n=10).  Therapy continued for a period of 3 months.  The researchers concluded that a computer-based intensive training program focused on attention, information processing and executive functions is effective in individuals with RR MS and low levels of disability.  Larger studies with longer periods of follow-up are needed before these results can be generalized and to demonstrate that the effects of the training persist over time.

In the evidenced-based review of CR for individuals with multiple sclerosis, researchers concluded that CR for MS is still in its infancy stage and more methodologically rigorous research is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various CR interventions (O'Brien, 2008).

Recently, there have been several small randomized controlled trials published that have evaluated CR for MS (Mani, 2018; Messinis, 2017, Mousavi, 2018; Rilo, 2018). While these studies have shown improvements in cognitive outcomes for MS subjects after CR, small sample sizes and short follow-up periods limit the applicability of the results.

A larger multi-site randomized controlled trial with a 6-month follow-up was conducted by Stuifbergen and colleagues with the aim to evaluate computer-assisted CR through cognitive performance outcomes, instrumental activities of daily living outcomes, and self-reported outcomes. Subjects were randomized into either the intervention group (n=93) that participated in an 8-week computer-assisted CR program or the control group (n=90) that received usual care plus freely available computer games. While the intervention group outperformed the control group on all measures, both groups improved significantly on all outcome measures. These results demonstrate that both computer-assisted CR and usual care for MS are successful.

Dardiotis and colleagues (2018) released the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis that evaluated the effect of computer-based CR on the neuropsychological performance of individuals with MS. The inclusion criteria for the search yielded nine studies with a total of 342 participants (176 in intervention groups and 166 in control groups). The results demonstrated that computer-based CR had an overall improvement in cognitive performance (SMD, 0.13; 95% CI, −0.02 to 0.28; p=0.08) and domain of memory (SMD, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.01–0.43; p = 0.04), but not in the executive processing speed domain (SMD, 0.04; 95% CI, −0.17 to 0.25; p = 0.73). While this meta-analysis had some significant results, there were several limitations. Various MS phenotypes, neuropsychological tests, and computer programs were included in the studies in this meta-analysis. Also, the length of the CR courses and frequency of the CR training sessions varied among the included studies.

Additional research and well-designed studies are needed before conclusions can be drawn regarding the benefits of CR in individuals with dementia (including but not limited to Alzheimer’s disease), multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and anoxic brain injury.


Cognitive function: The ability to selectively focus on information, obtain knowledge, and properly apply knowledge; the conscious intellectual activity of knowing, thinking, learning, judging, reasoning and remembering.

Cognitive stimulation: One of the therapeutic strategies frequently included in a CR program.

Rehabilitation: A structured set of therapeutic activities that are directed at re-entry into familial, social, educational and working environments, the reduction of dependence on assistive devices or services, and the general enrichment of quality of life.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI): Damage to the brain caused by a bump, blow or jolt to the head or a penetrating head injury that disrupts the normal function of the brain. Most instances of traumatic brain injury are the result of motor vehicle accidents, violence, sports injuries and falls.


Peer Reviewed Publications:

  1. Bahar-Fuchs A, Clare L, Woods B. Cognitive training and cognitive rehabilitation for mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; (6):CD003260.
  2. Barker-Collo SL, Feigin VL, Lawes CM, et al. Reducing attention deficits after stroke using attention process training: a randomized controlled trial. Stroke. 2009; 40(10):3293-3298.
  3. Bowen A, Hazelton C, Pollock A, Lincoln NB. Cognitive rehabilitation for spatial neglect following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; (7):CD003586.
  4. Chung CS, Pollock A, Campbell T, et al. Cognitive rehabilitation for executive dysfunction in adults with stroke or other adult non-progressive acquired brain damage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; (4):CD008391.
  5. Cicerone K.D, Dahlberg C, Kalmar L, et al.  Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: recommendations for clinical practice. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000; 81(12):1596-1615.
  6. Cicerone KD, Dahlberg C, Malec JF, et al. Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: updated review of the literature from 1998 through 2002. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; 86(8):1681-1692.
  7. Cicerone KD, Langenbahn DM, Braden C, et al. Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: updated review of the literature from 2003 through 2008. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92(4):519-530.
  8. Cuesta GM. Cognitive rehabilitation of memory following stroke. Theory, practice, and outcome. Adv Neurol. 2003; 92:415-421.
  9. Dardiotis E, Nousia A, Siokas V, et al. Efficacy of computer-based cognitive training in neuropsychological performance of patients with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2018; 20:58-66.
  10. Díez-Cirarda M, Ojeda N, Peña J, et al. Long-term effects of cognitive rehabilitation on brain, functional outcome and cognition in Parkinson's disease. Eur J Neurol. 2018; 25(1):5-12.
  11. Flavia M, Stampatori C, Zanotti D, et al. Efficacy and specificity of intensive cognitive rehabilitation of attention and executive functions in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. 2010; 288(1-2):101-105.
  12. Gillen G, Nilsen DM, Attridge J, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to improve occupational performance of people with cognitive impairments after stroke: an evidence-based review. Am J Occup Ther. 2015; 69(1):6901180040p1-9.
  13. Kumar KS, Samuelkamaleshkumar S, Viswanathan A, et al. Cognitive rehabilitation for adults with traumatic brain injury to improve occupational outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 6:CD007935.
  14. Laatsch L, Harrington D, Hotz G, et al. An evidence-based review of cognitive and behavioral rehabilitation treatment studies in children with acquired brain injury. Head Trauma Rehabil. 2007; 22(4):248-256.
  15. Limond J, Leeke R. Practitioner review: cognitive rehabilitation for children with acquired brain injury. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005; 46(4):339-352.
  16. Lincoln NB, Majid MJ, Weyman N. Cognitive rehabilitation for attention deficits following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000; (4):CD002842.
  17. Majid MJ, Lincoln NB, Weyman N. Cognitive rehabilitation for memory deficits following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000; (3):CD002893.
  18. Mani A, Chohedri E, Ravanfar P, et al. Efficacy of group cognitive rehabilitation therapy in multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand. 2018; 137(6):589-597.
  19. Messinis L, Nasios G, Kosmidis MH, et al. Efficacy of a computer-assisted cognitive rehabilitation intervention in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. 2017 Dec 31. [Epub ahead of print].
  20. Mousavi S, Zare H, Etemadifar M, et al. Memory rehabilitation for the working memory of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2018; 40(4):405-410.
  21. Nair RD, Lincoln NB, Cognitive rehabilitation for memory deficits following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; (3):CD002293.
  22. O'Brien AR, Chiaravalloti N, Goverover Y, Deluca J. Evidenced-based cognitive rehabilitation for persons with multiple sclerosis: a review of the literature. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008; 89(4):761-769.
  23. Powell J, Heslin J, Greenwood R. Community based rehabilitation after severe traumatic brain injury: A randomized controlled trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002; 72(2):193-202.
  24. Rilo O, Peña J, Ojeda N, et al. Integrative group-based cognitive rehabilitation efficacy in multiple sclerosis: a randomized clinical trial. Disabil Rehabil. 2018; 40(2):208-216.
  25. Salazar AM, Warden DL, Schwab K, et al. Cognitive rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury: a randomized trial.  JAMA. 2000; 283(23):3075-3081.
  26. Sammer G, Reuter I, Hullmann K, et al. Training of executive functions in Parkinson's disease. J Neurol Sci. 2006; 248(1-2):115-119.
  27. Schutz LE, Trainor K. Evaluation of cognitive rehabilitation as a treatment paradigm. Brain Inj. 2007; 21(6):545-557.
  28. Serino A, Ciaramelli E, Santantonio AD, Malaga S, et al. A pilot study for rehabilitation of central executive deficits after traumatic brain injury.  Brain Inj. 2007; 21(1):11-19.
  29. Stuifbergen AK, Becker H, Perez F, et al. Computer-assisted cognitive rehabilitation in persons with multiple sclerosis: results of a multi-site randomized controlled trial with six month follow-up. Disabil Health J. 2018; 11(3):427-434.
  30. Tárraga L, Boada M, Modinos G, et al. A randomised pilot study to assess the efficacy of an interactive, multimedia tool of cognitive stimulation in Alzheimer's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2006; 77(10):1116-1121.
  31. Turner-Stokes L, Disler PB, Nair A, Wade DT. Multi-disciplinary rehabilitation for acquired brain injury in adults of working age. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005; (3):CD004170.

Government Agency, Medical Society, and Other Authoritative Publications:

  1. Cappa SF, Benke T, Clarke S, et al. EFNS guidelines on cognitive rehabilitation: report of an EFNS task force. Eur J Neurol. 2005; 12(9):665-680.
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Injury Prevention & Control: Traumatic Brain Injury. Updated July 6, 2017. Available at: Accessed on July 5, 2018.
  3. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). National Coverage Determination: Institutional and Home Care Patient Education Programs. NCD #170.1. Effective date not posted. For additional information visit the CMS website at: Accessed July 5, 2018.
  4. Chesnut RM, Carney N, Maynard H, et al. Rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. February 1999.  
  5. Katz, DI; Ashley MJ, O’Shanick GJ, Connors, SH. Cognitive rehabilitation: the evidence, funding and case for advocacy in brain injury. McLean, VA: Brain Injury Association of America, 2006. Available at:  Accessed on July 5, 2018.
  6. Management of Stroke Rehabilitation Working Group. VA/DOD Clinical practice guideline for the management of stroke rehabilitation. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010; 47(9):1-43.
  7. Miller EL, Murray L, Richards L, et al. Comprehensive overview of nursing and interdisciplinary rehabilitation care of the stroke patient: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Stroke. 2010; 41(10):2402-2448.
  8. National Academy of Neuropsychology (NAN). Cognitive rehabilitation. NAN Position Papers. May 2002. Available at: Accessed on July 5, 2018.

Traumatic Brain Injury







Medical Policy & Technology Assessment Committee (MPTAC) review. Initial document development. Moved content of MED.00081 Cognitive Rehabilitation to new clinical utilization management guideline document with the same title.