Why It Matters

Congress faces bipartisan frustration over delays between FDA device approval and Medicare coverage—a gap averaging 5.7 years that industry calls the "valley of death."

Cubby Beds’ focus on securing a Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) code addresses this core bottleneck. Bills like the Ensuring Patient Access to Critical Breakthrough Products Act create legislative momentum for faster device access. Jeffrey J. Kimbell & Associates Inc.—the firm Cubby Beds hired—brings precisely calibrated experience through lobbyist Brett Hamilton Meeks, who served as Deputy Director for Health Policy at the Senate HELP Committee.

However, a major risk looms: federal budget proposals include approximately $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts over ten years. Since Medicaid covers nearly half of children with special health care needs, proposed cuts could devastate Cubby Beds’ primary market even if it successfully obtains a code.

By the Numbers

Cubby Beds registered for federal lobbying on January 7, 2025, retaining Jeffrey J. Kimbell & Associates Inc. to pursue HCPCS coding and pediatric safety bed reimbursement.

The eight-person lobbying team includes key healthcare veterans:

The firm’s healthcare expertise includes clients like Astellas Pharma, Biogen Inc., and Accuray Inc., with extensive Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement and medical device coding experience.

The Agenda

Cubby Beds is lobbying for a Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) code for its pediatric safety beds. The company manufactures enclosed, sensory-safe beds for children and adults with cognitive and physical disabilities, including autism, epilepsy, and dementia.

A dedicated HCPCS code is essential for reimbursement from Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers. Without it, the company cannot access federal health programs that cover its patient population. This first federal lobbying effort makes the coding push their primary objective.

Broader Context

Congress is actively debating how to speed Medicare approval for new medical devices, creating tailwinds for Cubby Beds. The Ensuring Patient Access to Critical Breakthrough Products Act aims to reduce years-long delays between FDA approval and Medicare coverage. The DMEPOS Relief Act of 2025 addresses outdated reimbursement rates for durable medical equipment providers.

However, Medicaid funding pressures threaten Cubby Beds primary customer base. The company’s products serve children and adults with disabilities who rely heavily on Medicaid coverage. While Democratic members like Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) are defending Medicaid, federal budget proposals include substantial cuts that could eliminate medical equipment coverage for disabled children.

Between The Lines

Multiple 2025 budget proposals include approximately $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts over a decade. Since Medicaid covers nearly half of children with special health care needs, proposed cuts could eliminate medical equipment coverage for disabled children—directly undercutting Cubby Beds’ primary market even if lobbying succeeds on coding.

Democratic members like Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) have emphasized Medicaid’s critical role covering medical devices for children that private insurance often rejects, creating potential allies for Cubby Beds’ pediatric population.

Competitive Landscape

Cubby Beds enters a competitive space where other durable medical equipment providers like Lincare Holdings Inc. are actively lobbying on reimbursement issues.

The most significant potential ally is Seattle Children’s Hospital, which lobbies heavily on pediatric mental and behavioral health and Medicaid access for children. Their advocacy directly aligns with Cubby Beds’ target patient population, positioning them as a powerful potential partner.

The Bottom Line

Cubby Beds enters federal lobbying at a moment of genuine congressional momentum for accelerating medical device access. By hiring healthcare-focused Jeffrey J. Kimbell & Associates Inc. with deep Senate HELP Committee connections, the company has positioned itself well to navigate coding policy.

However, securing a HCPCS code means little if states cannot afford to cover the device under Medicaid. The company’s long-term success depends equally on defending pediatric Medicaid funding—a fight that will likely consume as much political capital as the coding battle itself.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article