Funding resources
Document Use Key
Include directly in your authorization package to the payer.
Do not submit it to the payer. Use to guide and strengthen your authorization language.
Do not submit to the payer. Reference findings or data points within your authorization narrative.
Superseded. Do not use it in current submissions.
Manufacturer notices
Submit with authAll notices available to submit directly with your authorizations regarding manufacturer updates and clarifications.
Includes:
- Manufacturer Notice (Dated 6/15/26) Submit
- Cubby's official statement on product configuration. Attach to payer submissions.
- Manufacturer Notice (Dated 4/29/26) Retired
- Superseded by newer Manufacturer Notice above.
Marlborough et al. (2025)
ResearchThe only published + peer-reviewed study on enclosed bed outcomes.
Talking points:
- 225 families before/after review, sleep nearly doubled, elopement cut in half
- 41% reduced medication use
How to use:
- Cite in prior auth and appeal packages
- Use sleep + elopement stats verbatim in cover letters
2025 Charm study
ResearchPublished outcomes data on sleep duration, caregiver impact, and cost offsets.
Talking points:
- Translates outcomes into dollars: $7,872/year direct savings
- One prevented admission ($13,400) nearly pays for device
- Break even point: 9.5 months. Net savings after
- Bottom line: denying this bed costs more than covering it
How to use:
- Use in payer conversations where ROI is raised
- Reference break-even point in appeal cover letters
2026 Curfman whitepaper
ResearchClinical positioning on enclosed beds vs. restraint classification.
Talking points:
- Answers 3 payer questions:
- Restraint? No
- Necessary? Yes
- Is it worth it? Yes
How to use:
- Attach when payer denies on “restraint” grounds
2025 NCART whitepaper
ResearchNational CRT consensus on enclosed bed criteria, coding rationale, and clinical standards.
Talking points:
- National AT/Rehab industry formally states: enclosed beds are not restraints
- Defines as medically necessary safety devices
- Reviews required components: dx, safety risk, alternatives failed
How to use:
- Attach when payer denies on “restraint” grounds
- Use as credentialing document in any payer conversation
2026 Monitoring whitepaper
ResearchSupportive research and overview of monitoring benefits in enclosed beds.
Talking points:
- Dream Hub is an FDA Class I medical device not a consumer monitor
- "Less costly alternative" fails on line of sight needs
- For pediatric Medicaid, EPSDT's "correct or ameliorate" standard is broader than adult necessity. Model monitoring's impact on ADLs and safety to bring it under coverage.
How to use:
- Establish the bed first: condition, functional impairments, objective safety evidence, failed alternatives.
- Justify the Hub on its own: a child can't alert or self-report during sleep, so tie each monitoring function to that child's documented risks.
- Pre-empt the objection: line of sight, cord contraindication
Dream Hub document guide
Reference onlyCubby 2-specific rebuttal language addressing Dream Hub Accessory objections.
Talking points:
- Reviews granular documentation needs to show medical necessary for Dream Hub
- ADL modeling thru EPSDT coverage considerations for Medicaid
How to use:
- Review 4 steps to include in LMN for submission.
- Consider all bullets and for strongest case
Reimbursement justification
Reference onlyApproved language organized by denial type. Pull relevant sections into your submission narrative based on the state's challenges/pushback.
Talking points:
- Covers clinical evidence, product engineering specs, and economic ROI in payer-ready framing
- Key stats ready to pull: 1,200 lb frame, YKK #10 zippers (220+ lbf), 82.65% canopy longevity at 3+ years, $7,873/year direct medical savings, 16-month break-even
- Positions Cubby 2 as the true least costly alternative based on durability, clinical outcomes, and total cost of care
How to use:
- Do not submit this document to the payer. It's your internal playbook for building stronger submissions
- Match the denial reason to the relevant section and pull language directly into your appeal narrative
- Pair with the Marlborough or Charm study when a payer challenges clinical outcomes or cost
- Use the product engineering section when a payer suggests a lower-cost alternative as "equivalent"