https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1070-6421
-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Saranya S Patel, Jessica M Potvin, Dev Ashish, Sean Hollis, John DeLuca, Cognitive rehabilitation in contemporary neuropsychological practice: an exploratory survey of service delivery, reimbursement, and perceived barriers, Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, Volume 41, Issue 5, August 2026, acag045, https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acag045
Close - Share Icon Share
Abstract
Contemporary clinical neuropsychologists primarily provide assessment and consultative services rather than direct intervention. This study examined the extent to which cognitive rehabilitation remains part of contemporary neuropsychological practice and explored reimbursement pathways and perceived barriers to implementation.
An anonymous national survey was distributed to members of the National Academy of Neuropsychology through listserv and newsletter announcements. The survey included structured multiple-choice and open-ended questions assessing whether respondents provide cognitive rehabilitation, years of practice, clinical setting, insurance reimbursement patterns, and experiences with insurance denials. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses.
Twenty-two respondents completed the survey. Eighteen (81.8%) reported currently providing cognitive rehabilitation services. Reimbursed Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes most commonly included 97129/97130 (54.5%) and 96116/96121 (45.5%), with additional endorsement of health and behavior intervention codes (96158/96159) and group therapy codes (97150). Insurance denial experiences were mixed, with most respondents reporting occasional or conditional denials rather than consistent rejection of claims. Respondents also described variability in session limits and billing approaches across practice settings and payer policies.
Cognitive rehabilitation was reported by a majority of respondents, though service models and reimbursement pathways varied considerably. Given the small, self-selected sample, findings should be interpreted as exploratory rather than representative of broader neuropsychological practice. Larger investigations are needed to clarify training expectations, billing practices, and interdisciplinary collaboration.
