Find policies, billing codes, payers, states, and providers
Coverage and authorization of adult incontinence briefs for MO HealthNet beneficiaries over age 21
Customize your policy alerts
Sign up for all ADA policy alerts
Know when ADA releases new policies or updates existing guidance.
Monitor payer policy activity
Governs MO HealthNet (Missouri Medicaid) coverage and authorization of adult incontinence briefs for beneficiaries over age 21, addressing medical necessity determinations and exceptions/authorization processes.
Court declares state policy deeming adult incontinence briefs 'personal hygiene items' for participants over age twenty violates the Medicaid Act and federal disability integration mandates.
Defendants must provide Medicaid coverage of incontinence briefs to non-institutionalized adults if such coverage is provided to institutionalized adults pursuant to Olmstead.
Coverage Criteria for Adult Incontinence Briefs
Court-mandated coverage criteria
Covered when ALL of the following are met (as interpreted by the Court):
See MO provider bulletins and DME manual stating coverage language and Mo. Rev. Stat. § 208.152.1(19).
Physician determinations from treating institutions cited by plaintiffs.
See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(10)(A),(D); 42 C.F.R. §§ 440.70(b)(3), 440.210, 441.15.
Olmstead factors satisfied by plaintiffs; failure to provide community-based coverage forces potential institutionalization.
Mandatory coverage for non-institutionalized adults
Covered when ALL of the following are met
Based on Olmstead and the Court's permanent injunction; state must establish a fair process for obtaining medically necessary briefs.
Prior to the Court's intervention, Missouri's MO HealthNet policy treated adult incontinence briefs for beneficiaries older than twenty as non-covered "personal hygiene" items rather than medically necessary durable medical equipment. State provider materials and bulletins limited coverage to participants ages 4–20, and the agency refused claims or prior‑authorization requests for adults over twenty despite physician documentation of continuing medical need. (See MO provider notices and DME manual language incorporated by reference.)
The Court entered a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction on June 24, 2011, finding the state's policy unlawful. The order declares that the state's practice of deeming adult incontinence briefs for participants over age twenty as "personal hygiene items" violated the Medicaid Act's reasonable‑standards and home‑health services requirements, as well as the ADA and Section 504 integration mandate, and permanently enjoins the state from applying those policies while directing the state to establish a fair process for obtaining medically necessary briefs.
The Court criticized the agency's blanket classification because Missouri's own regulations and provider materials treat adult diapers as DME and the statute requires coverage of prescribed medically necessary DME. Rejecting a categorical label that excludes all adults over twenty, the Court held that individualized medical necessity determinations — supported by treating clinicians' documentation — are required rather than an across‑the‑board "personal hygiene" exclusion.
The Court expressly rejected the state's reliance on waiver programs as an adequate substitute for direct Medicaid coverage. It found the waivers were limited in eligibility and enrollment, that most plaintiffs were not reliably served by waivers, and that denying community‑based coverage unless a beneficiary is enrolled in a waiver would effectively force institutionalization — a result contrary to the ADA/Olmstead principles and therefore not permissible.
Provider Actions, Authorization & Documentation
Prior Authorization / Exceptions Process
Providers must use the MO HealthNet Exceptions Process to request authorization when a prescriber determines adult incontinence briefs are medically necessary. During the preliminary injunction period, such requests will be granted upon a determination of medical necessity. For assistance, contact the MO HealthNet Exceptions Unit at 1-800-392-8030, option 2.
- Contact: MO HealthNet Exceptions Unit — 1-800-392-8030, option 2
- Exceptions requests considered during preliminary injunction will be granted if medical necessity is determined
Prior Authorization Details Not Specified in Excerpt
The source materials reference prior authorization procedures and an electronic web-based DME authorization system (MO HealthNet PA Criteria) but the excerpt does not enumerate specific PA codes, web portal steps, or procedural codes. Providers should follow MO HealthNet DME/PA guidance and any current electronic authorization workflows when available.
- MO HealthNet DME manual and provider bulletins discuss pre-certification and web-based authorization
- No specific PA codes or step-by-step PA procedure listed in this excerpt — consult current MO HealthNet resources
Denial Basis — "Personal Hygiene" Classification
Prior denials were based on labeling adult incontinence briefs for beneficiaries over age 21 as "personal hygiene" items rather than medically necessary DME, despite physician documentation of continuing medical need. Providers should document clinical necessity when submitting exceptions/PA requests to counter such denial rationales.
- Historical denial rationale: "personal hygiene item" for >21-year-olds
- Documented physician medical necessity was previously disregarded in some denials
Denial Risk When Non‑Institutionalized Adults Are Denied
Failing to provide coverage of medically necessary incontinence briefs to non-institutionalized adults while institutionalized adults receive coverage risks violating federal law (including the ADA Olmstead integration mandate and the Medicaid Act's reasonable-standards requirement). Providers should be aware that coverage disparities can trigger legal and regulatory risk for the program and may support exceptions/appeals.
- Court found Missouri must provide briefs to non-institutionalized adults if provided to institutionalized adults
- Waiver programs are not an adequate substitute where not available or sufficient
Required Clinical Documentation for Exceptions/PA
Required clinical documentation should include physician statements demonstrating continuing medical need — e.g., that briefs are necessary to prevent skin breakdown, infection, sepsis risk, or to enable community living. Include diagnoses, functional impact, frequency of changes needed, and any prior treatment attempts or complications from lack of briefs.
- Physician documentation of continuing medical need to prevent skin breakdown, infection, sepsis risk
- Explanation of how briefs enable community living and prevent higher level of care
- Clinical notes on frequency of incontinence and prior complications if unmanaged
Exceptions Eligibility Criteria
The Exceptions Process applies only when the item is considered an essential medical service or would otherwise exceed program limitations. Exceptions may be granted if one or more conditions are met: required to sustain life; substantially improve quality of life for a terminally ill patient; replacement after disaster; or necessary to prevent a higher level of care.
- Exceptions Process limited to essential medical services or items exceeding program limits
- Grantable conditions (any one): sustain life; improve QOL for terminal illness; replacement after natural disaster; prevent higher level of care
Step Therapy / Waiver Programs
Step therapy is not described or required in the provided excerpt. The Court rejected reliance on waiver programs as an adequate substitute for direct coverage; do not substitute waiver enrollment for exceptions/PA coverage when the patient demonstrates medical necessity and is otherwise eligible.
- No step therapy requirements specified for incontinence briefs in the excerpt
- Waiver programs are not an adequate substitute if unavailable or insufficient
Background & Case Context
The case was brought by four disabled, low‑income Missouri adults (ages ranged in the record from 22–49) who suffer bladder and bowel incontinence. Their treating physicians submitted documentation that incontinence briefs were medically necessary to prevent skin deterioration, infections, and to enable the plaintiffs to remain in the community. The complaint and evidence showed that, absent coverage, some plaintiffs relied on donations or reused briefs and that only one plaintiff was receiving waiver coverage, with no assurance waivers could accommodate the others.
Definitions and Related Programs
Coding
| No codes listed |
Revision History & Material Changes
Court granted summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction declaring Missouri's policy classifying adult incontinence briefs as 'personal hygiene items' for participants over age twenty unlawful, enjoining application of that policy and ordering the state to establish a fair process to provide medically necessary incontinence briefs to adult Medicaid recipients.
Court found that under Olmstead the state must provide Medicaid coverage of incontinence briefs to non-institutionalized adults when such coverage is provided to institutionalized adults, rejecting waiver availability as an adequate substitute.
OpenPayer is powered by Trek Health's payer performance platform. Trek continuously ingests, validates, and normalizes Transparency in Coverage data alongside payer policies and other commercial payer data to create a structured payer intelligence foundation. OpenPayer uses this foundation to deliver personalized search results, dynamically generated policy pages, and tailored policy monitoring based on each user's payers, specialties, billing codes, and areas of interest. The same intelligence powers broader payer performance workflows, including reimbursement benchmarking, contract evaluation, payer negotiations, and financial decision-making.