Clinical UM Guideline

This document addresses the use of pulmonary rehabilitation for the treatment of various lung conditions. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an individually tailored multidisciplinary program of care for people with chronic respiratory impairment.

Medically Necessary:

Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is considered medically necessary in individuals who meet the following criteria:

1. Individual is preparing for or recovering from surgical interventions such as:
   1. Lung transplantation; or
   2. Lung volume reduction surgery; or
   3. Post-operative states; (for example, thoracic or abdominal surgery).
      or
2. Individual has any of the following conditions:
   1. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease such as:
      1. Asthma; or
      2. Bronchiectasis; or
      3. Chronic bronchitis; or
      4. Cystic fibrosis; or
      5. Emphysema; or
   2. Restrictive diseases such as:
      1. Chest wall disease; or
      2. Interstitial disease; or
      3. Post-polio syndrome; or
      4. Selected neuromuscular disorders; or
      5. Thoracic cage abnormalities; or
   3. Stable lung cancer;
      and
3. Individual continues to have disabling dyspnea despite optimal medical management associated with the following:
   1. A restriction in ordinary activities: and
   2. Significant impairment in quality of life;
      and
4. Individual is motivated to participate in a PR program;
   and
5.  Individual is free from the following (1 and 2 below):
   1. Conditions that may interfere with the individual undergoing the rehabilitative process, including but not limited to:
      1. Advanced arthritis; or
      2. Disruptive behavior; or
      3. Inability to learn;
         and
   2. Conditions that may place the individual at undue risk during exercise training, including but not limited to:
      1. Recent myocardial infarction; or
      2. Severe pulmonary hypertension; or
      3. Unstable angina.

Repeat PR programs may be considered medically necessary for individuals undergoing a second PR program in connection with lung transplantation or lung volume reduction surgery when medical necessity criteria for PR are met.

Not Medically Necessary:

PR provided in the inpatient setting is considered not medically necessary when medical necessity criteria for PR are not met.

Place of Service: Ambulatory/Outpatient
Duration: Frequency and duration of the program may vary according to the individual’s needs. It is not uncommon for the individual to receive therapy 3 times per week for 4 to 6 weeks.

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.

When services may be Medically Necessary when criteria are met:

When services are Not Medically Necessary:
For the procedure codes listed above when criteria are not met.

According to the American Thoracic Society (ATS), PR is defined as:

A comprehensive intervention based on a thorough patient assessment followed by patient-tailored therapies, which include, but are not limited to, exercise training, education, and behavior change, designed to improve the physical and psychological condition of people with chronic respiratory disease and to promote the long-term adherence of health-enhancing behaviors.

The essential assessment components of PR include exercise capacity, quality of life (QOL), dyspnea, nutritional status, and occupational status (ATS, 2021). PR programs combine an accurate diagnosis with therapy, emotional support, and education to stabilize or reverse both the physio- and psychopathology of pulmonary disease. The goal of PR is to:

• Restore the individual to the highest possible level of independent function.
• Educate the individual and significant others about the disease, treatment options, and coping strategies.
• Encourage individuals to be actively involved in providing for their own healthcare and to be more independent in activities of daily living (ADL).

Several studies have demonstrated important benefits of PR including reducing dyspnea (shortness of breath) and improving exercise capacity, total energy expenditure, and QOL (Dodd, 2012; Dowman, 2021; Egan, 2012; Higashimoto, 2020; Mandal, 2012; McFarland, 2012). A number of studies have demonstrated that PR has also been associated with decreases in hospitalization rates and the overall utilization of medical resources.

A randomized trial conducted by Ries (2005) demonstrated a non-significant trend for PR to increase 5-year survival. Mandal (2012) conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 30 participants with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. The primary outcome measure was the incremental shuttle walking test (ISWT). Study authors reported no benefit for participants in the control group, who received chest physiotherapy only, at the end of 8 weeks of therapy, or at 20 weeks post-therapy. Participants in the experimental group, who received chest physiotherapy in conjunction with PR, demonstrated significant benefits (relative to baseline values) on ISWT (p=0.03), endurance walk test (EWT) (p=0.01), Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) (p<0.001), and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) (p<0.001). At 12 weeks following the last training session, the experimental group also showed continued and significant improvement (relative to baseline values) for ISWT (p=0.04) and EWT (p=0.003). LCQ and SGRQ also were significantly improved compared with baseline (p<0.001 for both measures). Limitations of this study included the lack of statistical comparisons between treatment and control groups, small study population, lack of blinding, and lack of clinically relevant primary outcome measures. Additional well-designed RCTs are necessary to confirm these initial findings.

An RCT by Lai (2017) compared a preoperative, high-intensity, 7-day PR program to standard care for 101 participants preparing for lung cancer lobectomy. The primary endpoint was postoperative complications within 30 days of surgery, including atelectasis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, respiratory failure, mechanical ventilation, deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism, and empyema/pneumonia. The researchers found that postoperative complications were significantly lower in the PR group compared to the standard care group (5/51, 9.8% versus 14/50, 28%; p=0.019). In addition, the PR group was able to walk further in 6 minutes (22.9 ± 25.9 m versus 4.2 ± 9.2 m), had better peak expiratory flow (increase of 25.2 ± 24.6 l/min versus 4.2 ± 7.7 l/min), and had a shorter postoperative hospital stay (6.1 ± 3.0 versus 8.7 ± 4.6 days; p=0.001). A total of 6 participants did not complete the 7-day PR program due to needing surgery early (2 cases), lack of endurance (2 cases), and perceived lack of benefit (2 cases). Overall, the researchers concluded that individuals with lung cancer benefit from a high-intensity, systematic, preoperative PR program and have fewer postoperative complications.

In a joint consensus statement by the ATS and the European Respiratory Society (ERS) (Rochester, 2015), the following statement was made:

PR has demonstrated effectiveness for several respiratory conditions other than COPD. Randomized controlled trials demonstrating its beneficial effects on exercise capacity, symptoms, and/or health-related quality of life are available in interstitial lung disease, bronchiectasis, asthma, cystic fibrosis, lung transplantation, lung cancer, and pulmonary hypertension.

In a joint guideline published by the American College of Chest Physicians and the Canadian Thoracic Society (2016), the following recommendations were made for individuals with severe, or very severe COPD:

• …a recent exacerbation (for example, ≤ 4 weeks), we recommend pulmonary rehabilitation to prevent acute exacerbations of COPD (Grade 1C)
• …an exacerbation greater than the past 4 weeks, we do not suggest pulmonary rehabilitation to prevent acute exacerbations of COPD (Grade 2B)

In a joint guideline by the ATS and the European Respiratory Society (Wedzicha, 2017), the following statement was made:

Pulmonary rehabilitation implemented within 3 weeks after discharge following a COPD exacerbation reduces hospital admissions and improves quality of life, while pulmonary rehabilitation implemented within 8 weeks after discharge increases exercise capacity.

In 2020 the ERS and ATS Coordinated International Task Force (Spruit, 2020) issued interim guidance on COVID-19 rehabilitation in the hospital and post-hospital phase which states:

The international task force suggests that COVID-19 survivors with pre-existing/ongoing lung function impairment at 6-8 weeks following hospital discharge should receive a comprehensive pulmonary rehabilitation programme consistent with established international standards, compared to no pulmonary rehabilitation programme.

The task for provided the following rationale:

The current guidance for routine post-exacerbation pulmonary rehabilitation is 4 weeks post-discharge; however, the recommendation to delay this until 6-8 weeks post-discharge was based upon the following considerations: there is a lack of data about the decay of the levels of infection in the COVID-19 survivor; the data suggest that at 2 months a proportion of physical recovery will have occurred; and we know that is a challenge for services to recruit patients to a post-exacerbation rehabilitation programme 4 weeks post-discharge.

Li (2021) reported the results of a parallel-group, RCT, with 1:1 block randomization of 120 previously hospitalized COVID-19 survivors with complaints of lingering dyspnea. The study investigated whether survivors in a 6-week telerehabilitation program (n=59) via smartphone, and remotely monitored with heart rate telemetry, could improve functional exercise capacity, pulmonary function, lower limb muscle strength, health related quality of life (HR-QOL), and dyspnea versus no rehabilitation (control n=61). The study demonstrated that 6-minute walking distance in the control group increased by 17.1 m from baseline at 6-week post-treatment assessment, whereas 6-minute walking distance in the treatment group improved by 80.2 m. The adjusted between-group difference in change from baseline was 65.45 m (p<0.001). Additionally, lower muscle strength was measured via static squat test in how many seconds participants could remain in the squatting position. This measurement also improved to a greater degree in the treatment group as compared with the control group. Squat test times were 20.12s post-treatment (p<0.001), and 22.23s (p<0.001) at 24-week follow-up. Lung function also improved in both groups. However, no differences were found between groups apart from a change from baseline of 10.57 L/min (p=0.005) in post-treatment maximum voluntary ventilation (MVV) in the treatment group. HR- QOL as measured by the Short Form Health Survey-12 and Modified Medical Council Dyspnea Scale, also increased to a greater degree in the treatment group at post-treatment 3.79 points (p=0.004) and 2.69 points at follow-up (p=0.045), with 90.4% being dyspnea-free in the treatment group as opposed to 61.7% in the control group (p=0.001). Interestingly, a treatment effect on dyspnea was found immediately after the treatment but not at follow up. No serious adverse events occurred during the study. Eight individuals (5 in the treatment and 3 in the control group) were hospitalized, all for non-life-threatening reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or the intervention, and all in the follow-up period. The authors concluded that the telerehabilitation program was superior over no intervention with regard to functional exercise capacity, lower muscle strength, and physical HR-QOL. Short term effects were found for self-reported dyspnea and MVV. The effects of the program on pulmonary function are otherwise unlikely and effects on the mental aspects of QOL are small at best.

Hockele (2022) also reported the results of a clinical trial which studied the effects of pulmonary and physical rehabilitation on functional capacity via six-minute walk test, pulmonary function measured by spirometry, respiratory muscle strength by manovacuometry, handgrip strength by dynamometry, QOL by the COPD Assessment Test, and functional status by the Post Covid Functional Status Test. Twenty-nine (n=29) individuals diagnosed with post-COVID-19 mild, moderate, or severe involvement by chest tomography, underwent 16 sessions in a rehabilitation program. After testing participants performed inspiratory muscle training exercises (IMT), aerobic exercise and peripheral muscle strength exercises, standardized by a protocol two times per week, for 60 min each. After two months of treatment, participants were reassessed to measure their individual improvements. The functional capacity increased in meters walked from 326.3 ± 140.6 to 445.4 ± 151.1 (p< 0.001), with an increase in the predicted value from 59.7% to 82.6% (p< 0.001). The lung function increased in liters from 2.9 ± 0.8 to 3.2 ± 0.8 (p=0.004) for forced vital capacity and from 2.5 ± 0.7 to 2.7 ± 0.7 (p=0.001) for forced expiratory volume in the first second. The respiratory muscle strength increased in cmH2O from 101.4 ± 46.3 to 115.8 ± 38.3 (p=0.117) for inspiratory pressure and from 85.8 ± 32.8 to 106.7 ± 36.8 (p<0.001) for expiratory pressure. The authors concluded that the program provided an improvement in all domains for the participants, restoring their QOL.

A parallel, 2-arm, double-blinded, RCT by del Corral (2024) examined the impact of adding respiratory muscle training (RMT) to an eight-week aerobic exercise (AE) program in 64 individuals with long-term post-COVID fatigue and dyspnea. The program included AE 50 min/day 2 times/week; RMT: 40 min/day 3 times/week. The participants were randomised to 1 of 2 parallel groups, AE+RMT (n=32) and AE+RMT sham group (n=32).

Pre-intervention characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups. The primary outcomes measured were HR-QOL and exercise tolerance based on cardiopulmonary exercise test. Secondary outcomes were respiratory muscle function (inspiratory-expiratory muscle strength and inspiratory muscle endurance), lower and upper limb strength (1-min Sit-to-Stand and handgrip force); lung function: (spirometry testing and lung diffusing capacity); and psychological status (anxiety/depressive levels). Both groups showed improvements for exercise tolerance (AE+RMT, p<0.001; control, p<0.001), as well as HR-QOL (AE+RMT, p<0.001; control, p<0.001). The AE+RMT group showed statistically significant improvements in respiratory muscle strength and inspiratory muscle endurance compared to the control group; maximal static inspiratory pressure =p<0.001, maximal static expiratory pressure =p<0.00, inspiratory muscle endurance p=0.004. There were no statistically significant intergroup differences in upper and lower limb peripheral muscle strength assessed by the 1-min STS and handgrip. Lung function showed a statistically significant intergroup difference in peak expiratory flow (PEF); the AE+RMT group obtained a low-moderate increase in PEF compared with the control group (p=0.044). In addition, only the AE+RMT group had a statistically significant, albeit slight, increase in diffusion capacity after the intervention compared with baseline lung diffusion capacity p=0.035. The authors concluded that combining RMT with AE benefits respiratory muscles more than AE alone, though health and functional outcomes were similar between groups. The study is limited by its small sample size, lack of blinding, and other factors. Future studies with more robust methodology are needed to corroborate findings.

Ortiz-Ortigosa (2024) reported a systematic review and meta-analysis to study the effectiveness of PR programs and/or respiratory muscle training on respiratory sequelae in individuals with long term post-COVID. Five RCTs were included in the analysis. Study inclusion criteria were: participants aged 18 years or older, studies included at least one therapy involving PR or respiratory muscle training, participants were currently COVID negative, studies lacking results, and if interventions were conducted with supervision or at home. The outcomes measured were the 6-minute walk test, dyspnea, fatigue, pulmonary function, maximum inspiratory pressure, and QOL. In one study, exercise capacity increased in both groups, but there was a greater improvement in the intervention group compared to the control group (p=0.001). In another study, exercise capacity improved in both the group that underwent PR through virtual reality and the group that followed the conventional program, no significant differences was observed between the two groups. In another study, improvement was also identified in both groups after treatment (p>0.001). Regarding lung function, the first study assessed lung function but did not demonstrate statistically significant improvement following the rehabilitation program. Another showed improvement in the intervention group only. The last study did not identify significant changes in terms of VO2 max (p>0.05), however, significant individual improvements were observed in two of the groups; the CT (multicomponent exercise program) and CTRM (multicomponent exercise program plus IMT program) (p<0.05). Only one of the studies assessed maximum static inspiratory pressure, showing improvement in the intervention group (p<0.001). Regarding dyspnea, two studies demonstrated a reduction in dyspnea in both control and intervention groups, the group that used diaphragm release plus IMT showed greater improvement compared to the group that only underwent IMT as a treatment. The second study showed dyspnea improvement in both the control group (p< 0.004) and in the intervention group (p<0.03), which was not statistically significant. Another study showed that the control group only demonstrated partial improvement in dyspnea (p=0.02). Regarding fatigue, one study showed reduction in the intervention group (p<0.001) and in the control group (p=0.001), there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in favor of the intervention group. In another study, both groups showed a statistically significant difference after the intervention (p<0.001). However, another study identified a significant improvement in the intervention group only. In the last study, fatigue significantly improved in the CT and CTRM groups (p<0.05). Two studies assessed the QOL, one of them identified improvement in the intervention group (p=0.003), the other study did not demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in either of the groups. The authors concluded that despite the absence of a specific treatment, their review demonstrated that a well-structured PR program that incorporates both aerobic and muscular strength exercises along with techniques and inspiratory muscle exercises was the most effective form of treatment.

While preliminary results suggest that PR may be of benefit in individuals with respiratory involvement from COVID-19 who remain symptomatic after the acute episode, the evidence does not demonstrate durability, and the supportive data is limited in published in peer-reviewed medical literature generally recognized by the relevant medical community.

Multiple systematic reviews have been published that support the efficacy of PR in managing COPD-related illnesses (Gordon, 2019; Lee, 2016; Lee, 2019; Mantoani, 2016; Meshe, 2016; Paneroni, 2017; Yang, 2019; Yu, 2019) including a Cochrane Review which included 20 studies representing a total of 1477 individuals (Puhan, 2016). Frequency and duration of the program may vary according to the individual’s needs. It is common for the person to receive therapy 3 times per week for 4 to 6 weeks.

The ATS (2023) published updated Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Adults with Chronic Respiratory Disease. The recommendations included the following:

• For adults with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), we recommend participation in pulmonary rehabilitation (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).
• For adults with COPD, we recommend participation in pulmonary rehabilitation after hospitalization for an exacerbation of COPD (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

• For adults with interstitial lung disease, we recommend participation in pulmonary rehabilitation (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).
• For adults with pulmonary hypertension, we suggest participation in pulmonary rehabilitation (conditional recommendation, low quality evidence).
• For adults with stable chronic respiratory disease, we recommend offering the choice of center-based pulmonary rehabilitation or telerehabilitation (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
• For adults with COPD, we suggest either supervised maintenance pulmonary rehabilitation or usual care after initial pulmonary rehabilitation (conditional recommendation, low quality evidence).

A Cochrane meta-analyses (Morris, 2023) evaluated the benefits and harms of exercise-based rehabilitation for individuals with pulmonary hypertension (PH) compared with usual care or no exercise-based rehabilitation (control group). The review included 11 RCT’s with a 462 participants, study durations ranged from 3-25 weeks. The primary outcomes measured were; exercise capacity, serious adverse events during the intervention period, and HR-QOL scores. Secondary outcomes measured were cardiopulmonary hemodynamics, functional class, clinical worsening during follow-up, and mortality. Exercise-based programs included inpatient and outpatient-based programs. The mean six-minute walk distance following exercise-based rehabilitation was 48.52 meters higher in the exercise based group than in the control group (72%, 11 studies, 418 participants), the mean peak oxygen uptake was 2.07 mL/kg/min higher in the exercised based group than in the control group (67%; 7 studies, 314 participants), and the mean peak power was 9.69 watts higher than in the exercise group than in the control group (71%; 5 studies, 226 participants). Three studies reported 5 serious adverse events, however, exercise-based rehabilitation was not associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events (risk difference 0, 95% CI). The mean change in HR-QOL SF-36 Physical Component Score was 3.98 points higher and for the SF-36 Mental Component Score was 3.60 points higher. Two studies reported mean reduction in mean pulmonary arterial pressure following exercise-based rehabilitation (mean reduction: 9.29 mmHg) 2 studies, 133 participants. The authors concluded that exercise-based rehabilitation may result in an increase in exercise capacity, however the changes were heterogeneous and could not be explained by subgroup analysis. Exercise training may also result in a reduction in mean pulmonary arterial pressure. The certainty of the evidence was assessed to be low for exercise capacity and mean pulmonary arterial pressure, and moderate for HR-QOL and adverse events. Future RCTs are needed to further assess the use and safety of exercise-based rehabilitation in individuals with PH, including those with chronic thromboembolic PH, PH with left-sided heart disease and those with more severe disease.

The permanence of outcomes achieved by PR appears to be more related to the structure and duration of the supervised maintenance component of the program than the intensity of the program. The long-term outcome data are somewhat limited in this respect. To achieve sustained results, it is important that the person continues with the at-home regimen outlined in the PR program. There is currently no evidence that repeat PR programs result in additive long-term benefits in terms of dyspnea, exercise tolerance, or HR-QOL measures.

Peer Reviewed Publications:

1. Busby AK, Reese RL, Simon SR. Pulmonary rehabilitation maintenance interventions: a systematic review. Am J Health Behav. 2014; 38(3):321-330.
2. Carr SJ, Hill K, Brooks D, Goldstein RS. Pulmonary rehabilitation after acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in patients who previously completed a pulmonary rehabilitation program. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2009; 29(5):318-324.
3. Cejudo P, López-Márquez I, López-Campos JL, et al. Exercise training in patients with chronic respiratory failure due to kyphoscoliosis: a randomized controlled trial. Respir Care. 2014; 59(3):375-382.
4. Del Corral T, Fabero-Garrido R, Plaza-Manzano G, et al. Effect of respiratory rehabilitation on quality of life in individuals with post-COVID-19 symptoms: a randomised controlled trial. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2025; 68(1):101920.
5. Di Meo F, Pedone C, Lubich S, et al. Age does not hamper the response to pulmonary rehabilitation of COPD patients. Age Ageing. 2008; 37(5):530-535.
6. Dodd JW, Marns PL, Clark AL, et al. The COPD Assessment Test (CAT): short- and medium-term response to pulmonary rehabilitation. COPD. 2012; 9(4):390-394.
7. Dowman LM, McDonald CF, Hill CJ, et al. The evidence of benefits of exercise training in interstitial lung disease: a randomised controlled trial. Thorax. 2017; 72(7):610-619.
8. Egan C, Deering BM, Blake C, et al. Short term and long term effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on physical activity in COPD. Respir Med. 2012; 106(12):1671-1679.
9. Ferguson GT. Recommendations for the management of COPD. Chest. 2000; 117(2 Suppl):23S-28S.
10. Foglio K, Bianchi L, Ambrosino N. Is it really useful to repeat outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programs in patients with chronic airway obstruction? A 2-year controlled study. Chest. 2001; 119(6):1696-1704.
11. Gordon CS, Waller JW, Cook RM, et al. Effect of pulmonary rehabilitation on symptoms of anxiety and depression in COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest. 2019; 156(1):80-91.
12. Griffiths TL, Phillips CJ, Davies S, et al. Cost effectiveness of an outpatient multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation programme. Thorax. 2001; 56(10):779-784.
13. Higashimoto Y, Ando M, Sano A, et al. Effect of pulmonary rehabilitation programs including lower limb endurance training on dyspnea in stable COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Respir Investig. 2020; 58(5):355-366.
14. Hockele LF, Sachet Affonso JV, Rossi D, et al. Pulmonary and functional rehabilitation improves functional capacity, pulmonary function and respiratory muscle strength in post COVID-19 patients: pilot clinical trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(22):14899.
15. Hoffman M, Chaves G, Ribeiro-Samora GA, et al. Effects of pulmonary rehabilitation in lung transplant candidates: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(2):e013445.
16. Kaplan RM, Ries AL, Reilly J, Mohsenifar Z. Measurement of health-related quality of life in the national emphysema treatment trial. Chest. 2004; 126(3):781-789.
17. Ketelaars CA, Abu-Saad HH, Schlosser MA, et al. Long-term outcome of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD. Chest. 1997; 112(2):363-369.
18. Lai Y, Su J, Qui P, et al. Systematic short-term pulmonary rehabilitation before lung cancer lobectomy: a randomized trial. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2017; 25(3):476-483.
19. Lee AL, Hill CJ, McDonald CF, Holland AE. Pulmonary rehabilitation in individuals with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis - a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017; 98(4):774-782.
20. Lee EN, Kim MJ. Meta-analysis of the effect of a pulmonary rehabilitation program on respiratory muscle strength in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). 2019; 13(1):1-10.
21. Li J, Xia W, Zhan C, et al. A telerehabilitation programme in post-discharge COVID-19 patients (TERECO): a randomised controlled trial. Thorax. 2022;77(7):697-706.
22. Liu K, Zhang W, Yang Y, et al. Respiratory rehabilitation in elderly patients with COVID-19: a randomized controlled study. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2020; 39:101166.
23. Mahler DA. Pulmonary rehabilitation. Chest. 1998; 113(4 Suppl):263S-268S.
24. Maltais F, Bourbeau J, Shapiro S, et al. Effects of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 149(12):869-878.
25. Mandal P, Sidhu MK, Kope L, et al. A pilot study of pulmonary rehabilitation and chest physiotherapy versus chest physiotherapy alone in bronchiectasis. Respir Med. 2012; 106(12):1647-1654.
26. Mantoani LC, Rubio N, McKinstry B, et al. Interventions to modify physical activity in patients with COPD: a systematic review. Eur Respir J. 2016; 48(1):69-81.
27. McFarland C, Willson D, Sloan J, Coultas D. A randomized trial comparing 2 types of in-home rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a pilot study. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2012; 35(3):132-139.
28. Meshe OF, Claydon LS, Bungay H, Andrew S. The relationship between physical activity and health status in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease following pulmonary rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil. 2016; 39(8):746-756.
29. Moore E, Newson R, Joshi M, et al. Effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on exacerbation number and severity in people with COPD: an historical cohort study using electronic health records. Chest. 2017; 152(6):1188-1202.
30. Morano MT, Mesquita R, Da Silva GP, et al. Comparison of the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation with chest physical therapy on the levels of fibrinogen and albumin in patients with lung cancer awaiting lung resection: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Pulm Med. 2014; 14:121.
31. Ortiz-Ortigosa L, Gálvez-Álvarez P, Viñolo-Gil MJ, et al. Effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation programmes and/or respiratory muscle training in patients with post-COVID conditions: a systematic review. Respir Res. 2024; 25(1):248.
32. Paneroni M, Simonelli C, Vitacca M, Ambrosino N. Aerobic exercise training in very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Phy Med Rehabil. 2017; 96(8):541-548.
33. Ries AL, Make BJ, Lee SM, et al.; National Emphysema Treatment Trial Research Group. The effects of pulmonary rehabilitation in the national emphysema treatment trial. Chest. 2005; 128(6):3799-3809.
34. Salhi B, Huysse W, Van Maele G, et al. The effect of radical treatment and rehabilitation on muscle mass and strength: a randomized trial in stages I-III lung cancer patients. Lung Cancer. 2014; 84(1):56-61.
35. San Pedro GS. Pulmonary rehabilitation for the patient with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Med Sci. 1999; 318(2):99-102.
36. von Leupoldt A, Hahn E, Taube K, et al. Effects of 3-week outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation on exercise capacity, dyspnea, and quality of life in COPD. Lung. 2008; 186(6):387-391.
37. Waterhouse JC, Walters SJ, Oluboyede Y, Lawson RA. A randomised 2 x 2 trial of community versus hospital pulmonary rehabilitation, followed by telephone or conventional follow-up. Health Technol Assess. 2010; 14(6):i-v, vii-xi, 1-140.
38. Yang J, Lin R, Xu Z, Zhang H. Significance of pulmonary rehabilitation in improving quality of life for subjects with COPD. Respir Care. 2019; 64(1):99-107.
39. Yu X, Li X, Wang L, Liu R, et al. Pulmonary rehabilitation for exercise tolerance and quality of life in IPF patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2019; Mar 21;2019:8498603.
40. Sánchez-Milá Z, Abuín-Porras V, Romero-Morales C, et al. Effectiveness of a respiratory rehabilitation program including an inspiration training device versus traditional respiratory rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial. PeerJ. 2023; 11:e16360.

Government Agency, Medical Society, and Other Authoritative Publications:

1. Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research. Pulmonary rehabilitation for COPD and other lung diseases. November 21, 2006. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coverage/DeterminationProcess/‌downloads/id43TA.pdf. Accessed on February 19, 2025.
2. American Thoracic Society. Pulmonary Rehabilitation. Available at: https://www.thoracic.org/statements/pulmonary-rehab.php. Accessed on February 19, 2025.
3. American Thoracic Society. Pulmonary rehabilitation for adults with chronic respiratory disease. Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2023; 208(4), pp e7-e26.
4. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Health Topics: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Last reviewed October 21, 2022. Available at; https://www.cdc.gov/copd/features/copd-symptoms-diagnosis-treatment.html. Accessed on February 19, 2024.
5. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National Coverage Determination. Available at https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/new-search/search.aspx. Accessed February 19, 2025.
   • Lung Volume Reduction Surgery (Reduction Pneumoplasty). NCD #240.1. Effective November 17, 2005.
   • Pulmonary Rehabilitation. NCD #240.8. Effective September 25, 2007.
6. Collins EG, Bauldoff G, Carlin B, et al. Clinical competency guidelines for pulmonary rehabilitation professionals: position statement of the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2014; 34(5):291-302.
7. Criner GJ, Bourbeau J, Diekemper RL, et al. Prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD: American College of Chest Physicians and Canadian Thoracic Society Guideline. Chest. 2015; 147(4):894-942.
8. Dowman L, Hill CJ, Holland AE. Pulmonary rehabilitation for interstitial lung disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;(10):CD006322.
9. McCarthy B, Casey D, Devane D, et al. Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(2):CD003793.
10. Morris NR, Kermeen FD, Jones AW, et al. Exercise-based rehabilitation programmes for pulmonary hypertension. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023; 3(3):CD011285.
11. Nici L, Donner C, Woulters E, et al. American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society Statement on Pulmonary Rehabilitation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006; 173(12):1390-1413. Available at: http://www.thoracic.org/statements/resources/respiratory-disease-adults/atserspr0606.pdf. Accessed on February 19, 2025.
12. Parshall MB, Schwartzstein RM, Adams L, et al.; American Thoracic Society Committee on Dyspnea. An official American Thoracic Society statement: update on the mechanisms, assessment, and management of dyspnea. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012; 185(4):435-452.
13. Puhan MA, Gimeno-Santos E, Scharplatz M, et al. Pulmonary rehabilitation following exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Data Syst Rev. 2016;(10):CD005305.
14. Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, Weinberger SE, et al.; American College of Physicians; American College of Chest Physicians; American Thoracic Society; European Respiratory Society. Diagnosis and management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a clinical practice guideline update from the American College of Physicians, American College of Chest Physicians, American Thoracic Society, and European Respiratory Society. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155(3):179-191.
15. Ries AL, Bauldoff GS, Carlin BW, et al. Pulmonary Rehabilitation: Joint ACCP/AACVPR Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2007; 131(5 Suppl):4S-42S.
16. Rochester CL, Vogiatzis I, Holland AE, et al. An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society policy statement: enhancing implementation, use, and delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015; 192(11):1373-1386.
17. Soriano JB, Murthy S, Marshall JC, et al. WHO Clinical Case Definition Working Group on Post-COVID-19 Condition. A clinical case definition of post-COVID-19 condition by a Delphi consensus. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022; 22(4):e102-e107.
18. Spruit MA, Holland AE, Singh SJ, et al. COVID-19: interim guidance on rehabilitation in the hospital and post-hospital phase from a European Respiratory Society- and American Thoracic Society-coordinated international task force. Eur Respir J 2020; 56: 2002197.
19. United States Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense. VA/DoD clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. December 2014. Available at: http://www.healthquality.va.gov/guidelines/CD/copd/VADoDCOPDCPG2014.pdf. Accessed on February 19, 2025.
20. Wedzicha JA, Miravitlles M, Hurst JR, et al. Management of COPD exacerbations: a European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guideline. Eur Respir J. 2017; 49(3).

Asthma
Bronchiectasis
Chronic Bronchitis
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Chronic Respiratory Impairment
Cystic Fibrosis
Emphysema
Lung Transplantation
Lung Volume Reduction
Post-Polio Syndrome
Pulmonary Rehabilitation

Federal and State law, as well as contract language, and Medical Policy take precedence over Clinical UM Guidelines. We reserve the right to review and update Clinical UM Guidelines periodically. Clinical guidelines approved by the Medical Policy & Technology Assessment Committee are available for general adoption by plans or lines of business for consistent review of the medical necessity of services related to the clinical guideline when the plan performs utilization review for the subject. Due to variances in utilization patterns, each plan may choose whether to adopt a particular Clinical UM Guideline. To determine if review is required for this Clinical UM Guideline, please contact the customer service number on the member's card.

Alternatively, commercial or FEP plans or lines of business which determine there is not a need to adopt the guideline to review services generally across all providers delivering services to Plan’s or line of business’s members may instead use the clinical guideline for provider education and/or to review the medical necessity of services for any provider who has been notified that his/her/its claims will be reviewed for medical necessity due to billing practices or claims that are not consistent with other providers, in terms of frequency or in some other manner.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without permission from the health plan.

© CPT Only - American Medical Association