If I have the question correct, it states that the infant was 1 month CCA. The purpose of the question was to focus on interpretation of the TIMP and it’s predictive validity. The TIMP is most predictive of motor delay when administered around 90 days CCA, therefore, a child’s score at that age would provide the most meaningful information for clinical-decision-making. Because the child is not delayed or demonstrating atypical movement patterns or motor signs at 1 mo CCA, a HEP and follow up would provide targeted education, a follow up plan, and appropriate utilization of insurance resources. In some regions, this child might not quality for weekly OP services just because of PMH and risk factors. Your reasoning for intensity of services is not incorrect, although some might say it is over-utilization of services since the child is so young and not demonstrating delays or motor deficits at this time. It might also be stressful on the family who likely just returned home from the NICU.