Right now, tens of thousands of Americans live with chronic post-concussion syndrome (PCS) and I am one of them.
Debilitating headaches, memory loss, sleep disruption, and cognitive fog that persists months or years after a "mild" brain injury are just some of the challenges many experience. These are not things that others notice, including our doctors. Many have been told their symptoms are permanent. Most practitioners do not understand or recognize the severity of the problems as they are difficult to measure. Everyone involved is frustrated.
Most suffering have been denied the one treatment with growing evidence of benefit: hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT). There are many who do not even know of this possibility for relief.
Recently, I have been seen at a facility that has two hyperbaric oxygen chambers. I am unable to have my insurance cover this for me, and have noticed that the majority of the people having this treatment are doctors. They come in with their scrubs on and relax in a clear hospital-grade hyperbaric oxygen chamber and watch their favorite movie while improving their overall health. Significantly.
I have to admit I'm pretty jealous, and here's something to consider: these doctors understand the power of this treatment, not all doctors do. They also can afford to pay out of pocket.
The center in Delray Beach that I frequent is led by Raymond Crallé, RPT, a veteran and physical therapist with over 40 years of experience. He and Dr. Richard A. Neubauer were close friends. Dr. Neubauer (1924-2007) was the American physician renowned for pioneering the clinical use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in the United States, particularly for neurological conditions. He established the Ocean Hyperbaric Neurologic Center in Florida during the 1970s and treated patients worldwide, laying the foundation for modern neurological HBOT protocols.
Raymond Crallé focuses on using HBOT to treat a range of conditions including brain and sports injuries, stroke recovery, and veteran-specific wellness. Despite the mounting current evidence that speaks to the efficacy of this treatment, insurances are not covering this for those of us with Post Concussive Syndrome.
The denial isn't based on lack of results. It's based on a regulatory gap and outdated coverage policies that fail to recognize emerging science.
This article explains what HBOT is, what the evidence shows, why it's being denied, and why that needs to change.
Understanding the Basics: What Is HBOT?
HBOT stands for Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy. Think of it as breathing pure oxygen inside a special pressurized chamber. It's like a medical submarine for healing, and the evidence exists.
The treatment itself is straightforward. You enter a clear chamber, some are large enough to sit in comfortably while others are individual tubes, and breathe 100% pure oxygen while the pressure inside gradually increases. The numbers you'll see, like "1.3-1.5 ATA," mean the pressure inside the chamber is only 30-50% higher than normal air pressure at sea level. This is considered "low-pressure" or "mild" HBOT, much gentler than the high-pressure chambers used for deep-sea divers with the bends, which go up to 3.0 ATA or higher.
A typical treatment protocol involves 40-80 sessions over several months. Patients usually go 5 days a week for 8-16 weeks, with each session lasting 60 minutes. ,(with extra time involved for increasing and decreasing the atmospheres in the chamber During that time, you can read, watch movies, sleep, or just relax. The pressure change feels similar to ascending or descending in an airplane, your ears may pop occasionally, but it's manageable.
What happens inside your body during those sessions is where things get interesting. Under increased pressure, oxygen dissolves into your blood plasma at much higher concentrations than normal breathing allows. This super-oxygenated blood reaches areas of your brain that have been starved of oxygen since your injury. They are areas that may have been barely functioning for months or years.
Dr. Richard Neubauer pioneered this approach decades ago with his "recoverable brain" concept. His insight was revolutionary: when someone has a concussion, many brain cells don't die, they just go into a kind of "standby mode" because they're not getting enough oxygen. They're alive but barely functioning, like a car engine idling instead of driving. Neubauer proved that these "idling" or "dormant" brain cells could wake back up if you flooded them with oxygen under pressure.
Modern research confirms this to be true. Scientists like Dr. Paul Harch and Israeli researchers led by Dr. Shai Efrati have repeated and expanded Neubauer's findings in controlled studies.12 The brain has far more ability to heal itself than we once thought, if you give it the right conditions.
The Science That Changed Everything: What the Latest Evidence Shows
For years, the medical establishment treated post-concussion syndrome as a psychological problem. Patients were told their symptoms were psychosomatic, that they needed to "push through" the brain fog, that antidepressants and time were the only answers. Insurance companies used this ambiguity as justification for denial: if even doctors weren't sure what was wrong, how could they approve an expensive treatment?
Then the imaging studies arrived, and everything changed.
According to the CDC's most recent surveillance data (2020), 223,135 TBI-related hospitalizations and 64,362 deaths occurred in the United States, with falls accounting for 48% of cases and motor vehicle crashes representing 20%.3 But these numbers only capture the acute phase. They don't tell you what happens to the 82% of traumatic brain injuries classified as "mild", the concussions that send people home from the emergency room with instructions to rest and follow up if symptoms worsen.
The Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center tracks outcomes more systematically than any civilian system. The military tracked 485,372 brain injuries between 2000 and 2023. The result: 20% of 'mild' concussions never fully healed. One in five soldiers sent home with a concussion still suffered months, or years, later. That means one in five people with a "mild" concussion never fully recovers using conventional treatment alone.
Unlike countries with comprehensive national registries such as New Zealand and Sweden, the U.S. lacks systematic longitudinal tracking of TBI outcomes. This makes it difficult to assess real-world treatment effectiveness at scale and it makes it easier for insurers to claim there's "insufficient evidence" when patients like me request coverage for HBOT.
But the evidence exists. And it's not preliminary data or promising early results. It's the gold standard.
A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis published in Brain Sciences analyzed 17 studies including 1,847 TBI patients.6 Researchers didn't cherry-pick favorable studies. They examined every quality trial ever published on HBOT for brain injury. The results showed statistically significant improvements across every cognitive domain measured:
Memory improved by an average of 10.13 points on standardized tests (p<0.00001). That's not a marginal difference. That's the gap between forgetting where you parked your car and remembering conversations from three days ago. Between struggling to retain new information at work and being able to learn again.
Attention increased by 7.99 points (p<0.00001). For someone with post-concussion syndrome, this is the difference between reading the same paragraph five times and actually absorbing it the first time. Between zoning out mid-conversation and being able to follow complex discussions.
Executive function - your brain's ability to plan, organize, and solve problems - improved by 7.16 points (p=0.002). This is what allows you to manage multiple tasks, make decisions under pressure, and function independently. It's what separates someone who can hold down a job from someone on permanent disability.
Processing speed increased by 7.48 points (p=0.01). Your brain works faster, reactions improve, and the mental "lag" that makes everything feel like you're thinking through fog begins to lift.
Motor skills showed gains of 5.19 points (p<0.00001). Coordination returns, fine motor control improves, and physical activities that became frustratingly difficult start to feel natural again.
These weren't subjective self-reports. These were objective measurements using the same standardized neuropsychological tests that determine disability status, fitness for duty, and legal competency.
But the most compelling evidence comes from brain imaging. SPECT (single-photon emission computed tomography) and PET (positron emission tomography) scans show blood flow and metabolic activity in the brain. Before HBOT, scans of chronic post-concussion patients show distinct patterns: certain brain regions appear "dark" or sluggish, with reduced blood flow and minimal metabolic activity. These are the areas responsible for the symptoms patients experience, memory problems correlate with reduced activity in the hippocampus, attention deficits show up as decreased frontal lobe function, mood disturbances map to specific neural circuits.
After a course of HBOT, those same areas light up. Blood flow increases. Metabolic activity returns. The physical evidence of recovery appears on screen, measurable and undeniable. This isn't placebo effect. This isn't patients "feeling better" because someone is finally paying attention to them. This is objective proof that brain tissue previously thought to be permanently damaged can recover function.
An Israeli study published in 2022 followed 68 veterans with chronic TBI and PTSD through a 60 session HBOT protocol at 2.0 ATA. The results were striking: not only did cognitive function improve, but PTSD symptoms decreased significantly. Brain scans confirmed increased cerebral blood flow to previously under-perfused regions. Most importantly, these gains persisted at six-month follow-up. The improvements weren't temporary. They lasted.
Not every study has been positive. A 2023 U.S. military trial of 71 personnel with persistent post-concussive symptoms found no significant difference between HBOT at 1.5 ATA and a sham treatment using 1.2 ATA room air. Insurance companies love citing this study as proof that HBOT "doesn't work." But look closer at the design. The so-called placebo wasn't inert: 1.2 ATA room air still increases inspired oxygen by approximately 20%. When reanalyzed as a dose-comparison study rather than treatment versus placebo, both groups improved, which actually supports the treatment's efficacy at varying pressures.
This brings us to the verdict that should have ended the debate. In 2023, a comprehensive systematic review concluded that HBOT at 1.5 ATA meets Level 1 evidence criteria and earned an ASPS Class A recommendation for chronic mild TBI.
Level 1 evidence is the highest standard in medicine. This is the same threshold required before the FDA approves new drugs or medical societies endorse surgical procedures as standard practice. Class A recommendations are what insurers rely on to justify covering hip replacements, coronary stents, and chemotherapy regimens without pre-authorization battles.
Yet here we are. The evidence exists. The mechanism is understood. The outcomes are measurable. And insurance companies still say no.
Who Benefits: The Patients Left Behind
Post-Concussion Syndrome is what happens when someone gets a concussion - a "mild" brain injury from a car accident, sports collision, fall, or assault - and their symptoms don't resolve after a few weeks or months. The injury may have seemed minor at the time. You might not have lost consciousness. The CT scan in the emergency room probably came back normal. You were told to rest, avoid screens, and give it time.
But time passed, and you didn't get better. The headaches persisted. The brain fog never lifted. Sleep became impossible, or you started sleeping 14 hours a day and still waking up exhausted. Bright lights and loud noises became unbearable. Your memory deteriorated to the point where you couldn't remember conversations from that morning. Mood swings, anxiety, and depression crept in, not because you were weak, but because your brain chemistry had been fundamentally altered.
"Chronic" means these symptoms have lasted six months or longer. For many, it's been years. Some can't work. Some can't drive. Some struggle with basic daily tasks that used to be automatic. Relationships fracture under the weight of personality changes and cognitive decline. People who were once sharp, capable, and independent become shadows of themselves.
The medical system often fails these patients spectacularly. Neurologists run tests that come back normal and discharge them with a shrug. Psychiatrists prescribe antidepressants and suggest therapy, as if willpower could restore damaged neural pathways. Pain management clinics offer opioids that dull symptoms without addressing the underlying injury. Well-meaning doctors say, "Give it more time," even after years have passed. Desperate patients are told their symptoms might be permanent, that they need to accept their "new normal" and apply for disability.
This is where HBOT changes the equation. Multiple peer-reviewed studies show that low-pressure HBOT (1.3-1.5 ATA, 40-80 sessions) produces measurable improvements in chronic post-concussion patients across three critical domains.
First, cognitive function improves. Memory returns, not perfectly, not overnight, but measurably. Patients who couldn't remember their children's school schedules start retaining information. Attention spans lengthen. The ability to focus on tasks without mentally drifting every two minutes comes back. Processing speed increases; your brain stops feeling like it's running on dial-up and starts functioning closer to normal bandwidth. Executive function, the ability to plan, organize, prioritize, and make decisions, improves significantly. A patient who couldn't manage their household budget might return to balancing complex work projects. A student who dropped out of college might re-enroll and pass their classes.
Second, symptoms decrease noticeably. Headaches either disappear entirely or become manageable instead of debilitating. Sleep problems resolve. Patients fall asleep easier, stay asleep through the night, and wake feeling rested instead of perpetually exhausted. Mood stabilizes. The irritability, depression, and anxiety that made relationships impossible start to lift. For veterans and trauma survivors, PTSD-like symptoms, nightmares, flashbacks, hypervigilance, decrease significantly. The improvements aren't subtle. They're the difference between being trapped in your house and being able to return to work. Between watching your life disintegrate and starting to rebuild it.
Third, and most critically, brain scans prove these changes are real. SPECT and PET imaging show objective increases in blood flow and metabolic activity to brain regions that were essentially dormant. Before treatment, certain areas of the brain appear dark on scans. This indicates areas that are barely functional, starved of oxygen and glucose. After HBOT, those same regions light up. This is not placebo effect. This is not patients feeling better because someone finally believes them. This is physical evidence that brain tissue can recover function even years after injury.
The patients who benefit most tend to share certain characteristics. They have documented brain hypoperfusion on functional imaging . This is the proof that specific brain regions aren't getting adequate blood flow. They've tried conventional treatments without success. They have tried physical therapy, cognitive rehabilitation, medications yet still haven't recovered. Their symptoms have persisted for at least six months, often much longer. They have no contraindications like untreated pneumothorax or certain seizure disorders that would make HBOT unsafe.
These are the patients being denied coverage. Not because the treatment doesn't work. Not because it's dangerous. But because insurance companies classify HBOT for post-concussion syndrome as "investigational" despite Level 1 evidence supporting its use.
The Evidence Insurers Cannot Ignore
Insurance companies routinely approve treatments based on far less proof than what now exists for hyperbaric oxygen therapy in chronic concussion cases. Yet coverage denials persist - not because the science is weak, but because policy has not caught up with evidence.
The 2024 meta-analysis published in Brain Sciences wasn't an isolated study. It was a comprehensive systematic review that analyzed every quality trial ever conducted on HBOT for traumatic brain injury. Researchers found multiple well designed trials with proper control groups, patient populations large enough to trust the outcomes, and consistent results across different research teams working in different countries. The findings were not anecdotal. They were replicable, statistically significant, and clinically meaningful.
This is what Level 1 evidence means. It's not a preliminary finding that needs more research. It's not a promising early signal that warrants investigation. It's proof. The kind of proof that leads medical societies to update their clinical practice guidelines and the FDA to approve new treatments.
The researchers went further, assigning HBOT an ASPS Class A recommendation - the American Society of Plastic Surgeons' highest rating, used across medical specialties to signal treatments backed by irrefutable proof. Class A means the evidence is so strong that physicians should seriously consider this intervention as standard care.
This is the same classification insurers rely on to justify covering countless procedures without pre-authorization battles. Hip replacements carry Class A recommendations based on Level 1 evidence. So do coronary stents, certain chemotherapy regimens, and surgical procedures performed thousands of times daily across the country. All receive routine approval. Patients don't fight years-long appeals processes to access them. Doctors don't spend hours on peer-to-peer calls justifying medical necessity.
The contradiction is stark: insurers demand proof before covering HBOT, then deny coverage after that proof arrives.
The standard denial reasons break down under scrutiny in the following ways:
"Not FDA-Approved for TBI/PCS" - This is technically true but deliberately misleading. HBOT is FDA-cleared for 14 indications already, including decompression sickness, diabetes, carbon monoxide poisoning, and certain wound healing applications. The question isn't whether HBOT is safe, it is. The question is coverage policy for off-label uses.
Off-label use of FDA-cleared therapies is not only legal and ethical when supported by medical literature, it's standard practice across all specialties. Many cancer drugs are used off-label because formal FDA approval for every possible indication would take decades and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Psychiatric medications are routinely prescribed off-label because rigorous approval processes can't keep pace with clinical innovation. Insurers cover these uses because medical necessity, not regulatory labeling, should determine access to care.
Getting FDA approval for a new use of an established treatment requires massive clinical trials, extensive documentation, and years of review. Researchers can't patent oxygen, so there's no pharmaceutical company with billions in potential revenue willing to fund that process. Meanwhile, patients suffer needlessly.
"DoD/VA Reviews Call It 'Unproven'" - The Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs (DoD/VA) conducted trials that found mixed results, and insurance companies cite these as definitive proof that HBOT doesn't work. But those studies had serious design flaws that undermined their conclusions.
The most commonly cited "negative" trial used 1.2 ATA room air as a sham control. The problem: that's not an inert placebo. At 1.2 ATA, patients still receive approximately 20% more inspired oxygen than normal breathing. When both the "treatment" group at 1.5 ATA and the "sham" group at 1.2 ATA showed improvements, the study was reported as "no significant difference between groups." But that's not proof of ineffectiveness. It's evidence that both doses produced benefit, with the study inadvertently comparing two active treatments instead of treatment versus placebo.
Multiple researchers, including Dr. Paul Harch, have contested the DoD/VA interpretation. When these trials are reanalyzed as dose-comparison studies rather than treatment-versus-nothing, both arms showed significant net improvements in post-concussion and PTSD symptoms, gains comparable to other accepted therapies.
"'Investigational' Classification" - This is where the policy failure becomes most obvious. When published research shows measurable benefit, when imaging proves biological change, and when patients report life-altering improvement, denial based on "investigational" labeling isn't a scientific judgment, it's a bureaucratic barrier designed to protect profit margins.
If Level 1 evidence and Class A recommendations exist, coverage policies should reflect that. Especially when the alternative is no effective treatment. Especially when patients are being maintained on years of psychiatric medications, pain management regimens, and disability payments that cost the system far more than a time-limited course of HBOT.
The Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society, the leading professional organization for hyperbaric medicine, issued updated guidelines in 2022.15 For acute severe and moderate TBI, they assigned a Type 2a recommendation with Level A evidence, meaning HBOT should be considered for selected patients as adjunct therapy. For chronic mild TBI and post-concussion syndrome, they assigned Type 2a with Level B-R evidence, recommending use in research settings for patients with imaging-confirmed metabolic brain dysfunction.
Even the more conservative VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline (2021) acknowledges that HBOT may be considered in research settings with careful patient selection.16 Their position isn't "this doesn't work." It's "we need more data on which patients benefit most and what protocols optimize outcomes."
Insurance companies have turned this nuanced scientific position into blanket denials.
The Real Cost of Denial: What Insurers Aren't Calculating
When insurers deny HBOT for chronic post-concussion syndrome, they're making a short-term accounting decision that ignores long-term costs. The immediate expense of treatment which is typically $8,000 to $15,000 for a 40-60 session protocol, appears high when viewed in isolation. When measured against the alternative, it's a bargain.
Patients who don't recover continue generating healthcare costs indefinitely. Years of pain management. Ongoing psychiatric care. Sleep medications. Antidepressants and anti-anxiety drugs. Physical therapy that provides temporary relief without addressing the underlying brain injury. Emergency room visits when symptoms spike. The medical bills accumulate, month after month, year after year.
Then there are the indirect costs that never appear on an insurance ledger but devastate individuals, families, and society. Lost productivity when someone who was once a skilled professional can no longer work. Disability payments that continue for decades. The burden on families who become full-time caregivers. Relationships that fracture under the stress of cognitive decline and personality changes. Children who grow up with a parent who's physically present but mentally absent.
Employers pay twice. They pay when they maintain disability insurance for employees who never return to work. They pay again when experienced workers are replaced by new hires who require training and take years to reach the same level of competence, competence the injured employee could have regained with appropriate treatment.
From a value-based care perspective, a time-limited course of HBOT that yields sustained improvement in cognition, headaches, sleep, and mood has the potential to decrease long-term medical utilization dramatically, increase the likelihood of return to work and independence, and reduce the indirect costs borne by families, employers, and social programs.
Consider the military parallel. The Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center tracks 485,372 service members with TBI diagnoses since 2000. The VA has made HBOT available at select facilities for research participants, recognizing that even modest improvements in function translate to enormous cost savings over a veteran's lifetime. A veteran who recovers enough to live independently instead of requiring assisted living saves the system hundreds of thousands of dollars. A veteran who returns to work instead of drawing full disability for 40 years saves millions.
The same math applies to civilian post-concussion patients, but they're denied access to the treatment that could restore their lives.
Safety and Ethics: The Comparison Insurers Ignore
HBOT is an established, regulated medical technology used safely for multiple FDA-approved indications for decades. Across chronic mild TBI and post-concussion syndrome studies, it is generally well tolerated.17 The most common side effect is mild, reversible barotrauma, ear pressure issues similar to what you experience when flying. Patients may need to equalize pressure by yawning or swallowing, and occasionally someone develops temporary ear discomfort that resolves after treatment. Serious complications are rare, occurring in less than 0.1% of cases at therapeutic pressures.
Compare this safety profile to what insurers routinely approve for post-concussion patients: years of polypharmacy with significant risk profiles.
Pain medications, including opioids in some cases, carry risks of dependence, overdose, constipation, cognitive impairment, and hormonal disruption. Sleep aids like benzodiazepines or z-drugs have dependency risks, increase fall risk in older adults, and cause next day drowsiness. Psychiatric medications prescribed for mood symptoms often have sedating effects, weight gain, sexual dysfunction, and can take weeks to show any benefit, if they work at all. Anti-anxiety medications may cause cognitive dulling, dependence, and rebound anxiety when discontinued.
These medications don't restore function. They mask symptoms. A patient on chronic pain management isn't healing; they're numbing the problem while their brain remains damaged. A patient on sleep aids isn't addressing the neurological disruption causing insomnia; they're chemically inducing unconsciousness that doesn't provide restorative rest. A patient on antidepressants for post-concussion mood changes isn't treating the underlying brain injury; they're altering neurotransmitter levels in a brain that's already compromised.
Insurers approve these medications without hesitation. Pre-authorization for opioids is often a formality. Antidepressants and sleep aids are covered as standard formulary drugs. Patients can stay on these regimens for years, even decades, and insurers will continue paying, despite mounting evidence that long-term outcomes are poor.
The ethical question is unavoidable: why are insurers willing to cover treatments that only manage symptoms, often with significant side effects and dependency risks, while denying coverage for a treatment that addresses the root cause of brain dysfunction, has a favorable safety profile, and produces measurable functional recovery?
When a therapy has plausible biological mechanisms, improved oxygenation, reduced neuroinflammation, enhanced neuroplasticity and repeated signals of benefit across symptoms, cognitive function, and imaging studies, continuing to deny access purely on the basis of categorical guideline conservatism raises serious ethical questions.
Particularly for non-veteran civilians who cannot access certain government-sponsored treatment options. A veteran with chronic post-concussion syndrome can potentially access HBOT through VA research protocols or specific medical centers. A civilian with identical symptoms, identical imaging findings, and identical functional impairment gets denied because their insurance company classifies the treatment as "investigational."
This creates a two-tier system where access to effective care depends on military service status rather than medical necessity. That's not evidence-based medicine. That's bureaucratic gatekeeping that harms patients while protecting insurer profit margins.
What Should Change: A Path Forward
The current situation is untenable. Patients with objective evidence of brain injury, measurable functional impairment, and documented failure of conventional treatments are being denied access to a safe, effective therapy backed by Level 1 evidence. This isn't a scientific problem anymore. It's a policy problem.
Here's what needs to change.
First, insurers must recognize the evidence threshold that exists. When Level 1 evidence and Class A recommendations are published, coverage policies should reflect that reality, especially when the alternative is no effective treatment. The standard applied to HBOT should be the same standard applied to every other medical intervention: Does the evidence support its use? Is it safe? Is it medically necessary for this patient?
If the answer to all three questions is yes, coverage should follow. The fact that a treatment is used "off-label" should not be an automatic disqualifier when medical literature supports that use. The fact that some trials show mixed results should not override a comprehensive meta-analysis demonstrating consistent benefit. The fact that optimal protocols are still being refined should not deny patients access to protocols that already work.
Second, allow case-by-case medical necessity determinations. Not every post-concussion patient needs HBOT. Some recover fully with rest and time. Some respond well to conventional rehabilitation. But for patients with documented brain hypoperfusion on SPECT or PET scans, persistent symptoms beyond six months despite standard care, and objective cognitive deficits on neuropsychological testing, HBOT should be a covered option.
Insurers could require baseline and follow-up testing using standardized neurocognitive assessments and symptom scales. They could mandate functional brain imaging when feasible to document response. They could require participation in registries or pragmatic trials to continue refining protocols and building real-world evidence. These requirements would protect payers from indiscriminate use while supporting ongoing data collection and ensuring that patients who don't respond aren't continued on treatment indefinitely.
Third, launch pilot coverage programs with mandatory outcome tracking. Insurers could cover HBOT for carefully selected chronic post-concussion patients while requiring comprehensive documentation of results. If gains are real and durable, expand coverage. If specific patient populations show better responses than others, refine selection criteria. If certain protocols produce superior outcomes, standardize around those approaches.
This is how evidence-based medicine is supposed to work: study results inform policy, policy allows access, real-world data refines understanding, and coverage evolves as knowledge grows. Instead, we have a system where evidence accumulates in journals while patients are told to accept permanent disability.
Fourth, address the regulatory approval gap. The FDA approval process isn't designed for established therapies being applied to new indications. There needs to be a pathway for treatments like HBOT, already FDA-cleared for other uses, with well-understood safety profiles, to gain coverage for off-label indications supported by sufficient evidence without requiring the decades-long, billion-dollar drug approval process.
Other countries have solved this problem. Health systems in Israel, Canada, and several European nations cover HBOT for neurological indications based on the strength of clinical evidence, not outdated regulatory classifications. The U.S. could adopt similar frameworks.
Finally, stop punishing patients for having conditions that fall between specialties. Post-concussion syndrome doesn't fit neatly into neurology, psychiatry, or rehabilitation medicine. It involves all three. The fragmented U.S. healthcare system struggles with conditions that require coordinated, multidisciplinary care. Insurers exploit this fragmentation by denying coverage for interventions that don't align with traditional specialty boundaries.
HBOT for chronic post-concussion syndrome should be viewed the way cardiac rehabilitation is viewed after a heart attack: an evidence-based intervention that accelerates recovery, improves long-term outcomes, and reduces the need for ongoing medical management. No one questions covering cardiac rehab because the evidence is clear and the specialty alignment is obvious. The evidence for HBOT in chronic post-concussion is equally clear. The specialty alignment being less obvious shouldn't matter.
The Bottom Line
I started this article by telling you I'm one of tens of thousands living with chronic post-concussion syndrome. I've experienced the cognitive fog, the relentless headaches, the sleep disruption, the memory loss. I've sat across from doctors who had no answers beyond "give it more time" and "try this medication." I've fought insurance denials while watching other patients, doctors who understand the science and can afford to pay out of pocket, receive the treatment that could help me recover.
The evidence for HBOT in chronic post-concussion syndrome isn't preliminary or speculative. It's Level 1, Class A - the highest standard in medicine. Brain imaging shows objective biological changes. Neurocognitive testing documents measurable improvements. Patients report life-altering recovery of function. The safety profile is favorable. The mechanism is understood.
Yet insurance companies say no.
They say no because the treatment is "off-label," even though off-label use of approved therapies is standard practice throughout medicine. They say no because military studies found "mixed results," ignoring design flaws that rendered those studies uninterpretable. They say no because coverage policies haven't caught up with evidence, and updating those policies would cost money in the short term, even though denying coverage costs far more in the long term through disability payments, lost productivity, and ongoing medical management of symptoms that could have been resolved.
Copyright © 2026 California Business Journal. All Rights Reserved.
For California Business Journal Disclaimers, go to /terms-conditions/.
