CurrentColorado Rocky Mountain Health PlansPolicy CS036OH.F

Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation (for Ohio Only)

Medical policy governing the use of electrical stimulation devices and therapies (e.g., TENS, FES, NMES, PENS, IFT, MENS) for treatment of pain and muscle rehabilitation for Ohio members and providers.

Policy Summary

PayerColorado Rocky Mountain Health Plans

PolicyElectrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation (for Ohio Only)

Policy CodePolicy CS036OH.F

Change TypeNo material change

Effective DateMay 1, 2026

Next Review DateN/A

Key ActionRequire prior authorization and medical necessity documentation for implantable neuromodulation and document failure of conservative therapies when coverage is requested.

SourceLink

POLICY UPDATE CHANGES

No material clinical or coverage changes in this revision.

1state this policy applies to (Ohio only)

56pages referenced for FDA section

15distinct stimulation modalities described

Very low–lowoverall quality of evidence (many FES studies)

64%

Trek Health ingests and normalizes Transparency in Coverage data and payer policy updates to give provider organizations a clear view of how commercial reimbursement behaves across markets, payers, and services. Our platform transforms raw payer disclosures into structured intelligence that supports contract evaluation, payer negotiations, and service line strategy. By combining market benchmarks with ongoing policy visibility, Trek helps teams identify variability, risk, and opportunity in commercial reimbursement. The result is faster insight, stronger negotiating positions, and more informed financial decisions.

ReActiv8 12-mo responder rate

Coverage Criteria and Evidence-based Stance

Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) — Covered when ALL criteria are met

FES is covered when ALL of the following are met:

FES coverage criteria: Demonstration of intact lower motor units (L1 and below) (both muscle and peripheral nerves); Muscle and joint stability for weight-bearing at upper and lower extremities demonstrating balance and control to maintain an upright support posture independently; Demonstration of brisk muscle contraction; Demonstration of sensory perception sufficient for muscle contraction; Demonstration of a high level of motivation, commitment, and cognitive ability for device use; Ability to transfer independently; Demonstration of independent standing tolerance for at least 3 minutes; Demonstration of hand and finger function to manipulate controls; Post-recovery from spinal cord injury and restorative surgery of at least 6 months; Absence of hip and knee degenerative disease; Absence of history of long bone fracture secondary to osteoporosissee thresholds

All listed conditions must be met for coverage.

Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation (NMES) — Covered when ANY of the following are met

NMES is covered when ANY of the following are met:

NMES coverage criteria: Disuse muscle atrophy when the nerve supply to the muscle is intact AND the atrophy is not of neurological origin (for example resulting from casting, splinting, or contractures); OR when used as part of a comprehensive lower limb rehabilitation program following total knee arthroplasty; OR to improve upper extremity function in persons with partial paralysis following stroke when used as part of a comprehensive rehabilitation program.

NMES is not covered for conditions not meeting these criteria.

Evidence-based coverage considerations

Coverage stance for PENS and microcurrent therapies — conditional logic:

Short-term benefit evidence: Some RCTs and meta-analyses report immediate or short-term reductions in pain intensity and local pressure pain thresholds after PENS or microcurrent interventions.

Effect sizes vary; many studies measure immediate/short-term only

Limitations reducing certainty: Most studies are small, heterogeneous in parameters, often single-center, with short follow-up and inconsistent blinding; systematic reviews call for well-designed RCTs with longer follow-up.

This reduces confidence in recommending routine coverage

Contexts with evidence of potential benefit

Contexts where evidence shows potential benefit (selection and programmatic considerations):

Postoperative orthopedic rehabilitation: NMES as an adjunct to conventional rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction or joint replacement has RCT and systematic review evidence demonstrating improved quadriceps strength and some functional gains in short- and long-term follow-up.

Earlier initiation (≤1 week) may yield greater strength recovery in some analyses.

Enhanced recovery and edema/DVT outcomes after THR/THA: Small RCTs report reduced early mobilization pain, reduced limb swelling at some time points, and increased femoral vein peak velocity with NMES, suggesting potential benefit for early recovery and thromboprophylaxis as an adjunct.

Evidence is limited by small sample sizes and short follow-up.

Pediatric cerebral palsy and chronic neurological disorders: Randomized trials and systematic reviews indicate NMES can improve muscle strength, volume, gait parameters, and functional mobility in children with spastic cerebral palsy, though protocols and dosage vary and generalizability is limited.

Coverage criteria summaries by condition

Condition-specific coverage considerations summarized from evidence syntheses:

Stroke — NMES/CCFES for upper limb or dysphagia: Consider coverage when trial evidence demonstrates functional improvement and patient selection matches populations with demonstrated benefit (for example subacute stage or severe paresis for ADL gains); evidence is mixed so selection should align with trial populations and outcome measures.

References: Kristensen et al., Alamer et al., Knutson, Shen, Xie.

COPD — NMES: Consider coverage for patients unable to participate in standard pulmonary rehabilitation when NMES is added to rehabilitation and documented measures (6MWT, quadriceps strength) show benefit; NMES alone is not a substitute for pulmonary rehabilitation.

Evidence certainty low to very low; document intolerance to standard exercise.

Chronic low back pain and IFT: Transcutaneous electrotherapies (IFT/TENS/EMS) show mixed, largely short-term effects; authoritative guidelines and systematic reviews note high heterogeneity and limited long-term benefit — consider only as adjunctive, short-term therapy after failure of guideline-directed conservative care and with documented objective outcomes.

General coverage stance for IFT and MENS

General stance for interferential and microcurrent therapies based on authoritative guidelines and reviews:

Guideline and evidence summary: Authoritative guideline panels (ACP, NICE) conclude evidence is insufficient or recommend against offering IFT for chronic low back pain, knee OA, and chronic primary pain; systematic reviews report heterogeneity and small trials—coverage should therefore be limited and require strong justification when requested.

NICE specifically recommends IFT not be offered for OA and chronic primary pain.

IFT in knee osteoarthritis

IFT evidence in knee osteoarthritis:

IFT in knee OA: Systematic reviews and network meta-analyses report modest short- and long-term pain and some function improvements with IFT versus control in some trials, but effect sizes are heterogeneous and not consistently statistically superior to other interventions; IFT may be considered adjunctive rather than preferred.

Chen et al. and Zeng et al. syntheses summarized.

IFT in other musculoskeletal conditions

IFT in other musculoskeletal indications — trial findings:

IFT in fractures and shoulder conditions: Some well-conducted RCTs show no additional benefit of IFT over sham when both groups receive structured rehabilitation (for example proximal humeral fracture trials), indicating limited incremental benefit in certain musculoskeletal injuries.

Duran et al. and related trials reported no between-group differences.

IFT in low back and soft-tissue disorders: Trials in CLBP and soft-tissue conditions show mixed results; some RCTs report short-term benefit while others show equivalence to sham or TENS, reflecting high heterogeneity in protocols and outcomes.

Rajfur et al., Tugay & Kul, Hussein et al.

IFT compared with or added to other therapies

Comparative effectiveness of IFT versus other modalities:

Mixed comparative results: Trials comparing IFT to TENS or adding IFT to manual therapy/exercise show mixed findings — some report equivalence, some report adjunctive advantages at specific parameters, and some favor TENS; results vary by condition, parameter selection, and trial quality.

Comparative literature is heterogeneous and not definitive.

MENS / MCT evidence summary

Microcurrent (MENS/MCT) evidence summary:

MENS findings: Available RCTs and systematic reviews are small and heterogeneous; some show modest short-term pain reductions for select indications (e.g., masticatory myofascial pain, postoperative knee pain), while others show no advantage over control — overall evidence is limited and of low quality.

Maeda, Bavarian, and Iijima & Takahashi reviews provide the principal data.

The policy text references a broad set of electrical stimulation modalities described for pain and muscle rehabilitation. These include: Interferential therapy (IFT), Microcurrent electrical nerve stimulation (MENS / MCT), Percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS / PNT), Percutaneous electrical nerve field stimulation (PENFS), Percutaneous/peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), Peripheral subcutaneous/field stimulation (PNFS), Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation (PEMF / PES), Restorative neurostimulation (e.g., ReActiv8), Scrambler therapy, Translingual stimulation (PoNS/TLS), Functional electrical stimulation (FES), Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), and Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) — including device classes and supply codes referenced for each modality.

Multiple sections emphasize that the evidence base for many electrotherapy modalities is limited by small trials, heterogenous devices/protocols, short follow-up, and risk of bias. Authorities and HTAs (Hayes, ECRI) characterize overall quality as low to very low, and guideline panels (e.g., NICE, ACP) note insufficient evidence to recommend routine use for several indications; therefore use is often described as investigational or requiring further high-quality RCT evidence.

One cited multicenter stroke trial applied explicit exclusion criteria: excluded were patients with severe cognitive or communication disorders, severe cardiopulmonary, renal, or hepatic impairment, those with cardiac pacemakers or major psychiatric disorders, those whose foot drop was due to peripheral nerve injury, and participants with noncontinuous treatment or missing follow-up data. The trial also required CT or MRI confirmation of stroke and defined disease duration windows (1–12 months) for eligibility.

Device-specific evidence is sometimes inconclusive. For example, the ECRI assessment of the MyndMove system concluded available trials were very small and at high risk of bias, leaving efficacy for hand/arm function unproven. HTAs (Hayes) similarly rated some assistive and rehabilitative FES evidence as low or very low quality, limiting conclusions about particular commercial systems.

In the cited document sections there are no explicit payer exclusions or blanket contractual prohibitions listed; instead the text documents areas of insufficient or low‑certainty evidence across modalities and indicates that some uses may be considered investigational or not supported outside research contexts.

IFT and several other electrotherapies are reported to lack sufficient evidence for certain indications. NICE and systematic reviews conclude IFT should not be offered for osteoarthritis, chronic primary pain, or low back pain due to insufficient or inconsistent trial results; similarly, evidence is inadequate to support routine use of electrotherapies for bone fracture healing or to replace standard pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD.

NICE guidance explicitly recommends that IFT should not be offered for osteoarthritis and for chronic primary pain because the evidence does not demonstrate clinical benefit; the guidance also recommends against offering IFT for low back pain given the paucity and low quality of supportive studies.

NICE advises against the routine use of PENS for low back pain (with or without sciatica) because available studies are small and of low quality; systematic reviews and HTAs similarly find the evidence shows possible short‑term benefit but insufficient long‑term or high‑quality data to support standard-of-care use.

Summaries of PENS and microcurrent therapies indicate small RCTs and heterogeneous trials showing some immediate or short‑term reductions in pain in select settings, but the overall certainty is low. The literature suggests consideration only in well‑selected patients after conventional therapies have failed and primarily within research or with rigorous outcome monitoring rather than as routine coverage.

Some trial evidence shows potential benefit for electrotherapies as adjuncts in postoperative rehabilitation (for example NMES after ACL repair or joint replacement), with improved early quadriceps strength or reduced limb swelling in small RCTs. However, authors consistently note the small size and methodological limitations of these studies; therefore these findings are presented as adjunctive recommendations within a comprehensive rehabilitation program rather than broad coverage endorsements.

PEMF is characterized in the evidence summaries as having mixed and heterogeneous trial results. Systematic reviews report a nonsignificant short‑term pain effect in pooled analyses for knee OA and insufficient evidence to support routine use to enhance bone healing in acute fractures; larger, standardized RCTs are needed to clarify efficacy.

The cited sections do not list explicit procedural exclusions; the focus is on insufficient or low‑certainty clinical evidence and guideline guidance limiting routine adoption rather than prescribing specific procedural prohibitions.

Scrambler therapy is described as lacking adequate high‑quality evidence to support routine use. Guideline panels (ASCO; ESMO/EONS/EANO) and systematic reviews conclude evidence is low, inconsistent, or insufficient to recommend scrambler therapy for CIPN or other chronic neuropathic pain outside of clinical trials.

The policy notes that peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) devices have not been specifically approved by the FDA for treatment of pain or muscle rehabilitation; many clinical uses reported in studies represent off‑label applications using spinal cord stimulation hardware.

Reference‑only sections reiterate that no explicit payer coverage exclusions are stated in these chunks; rather, the document emphasizes where evidence is insufficient and where investigational designation or research‑only use may apply.

FES and NMES for non‑approved indications are treated as unproven or not medically necessary when not meeting the policy's specified criteria. The document also states more generally that many electrotherapies are used to exercise muscles, demonstrate muscular response, relieve pain, or for testing purposes, but clinical coverage depends on indication‑specific evidence and criteria.

Evidence syntheses and HTAs describe home‑based or assistive applications of FES, and scrambler and PEMF therapies for a range of indications, but conclude that for many of these indications the evidence is insufficient. Hayes and other reviewers specifically note limited and inconclusive literature for home‑based FES and for several noninvasive electrotherapies, supporting an investigational stance for routine outpatient/home application without stronger trial data.

Use as component of a comprehensive rehabilitation program where specified

Use as component of a comprehensive rehabilitation program where specified:

Rehabilitation program component: When trials or approvals specify device-based stimulation as part of a structured rehabilitation program (e.g., FES for ambulation after SCI; NMES as adjunct after TKA or stroke), coverage requires documentation that the therapy is delivered within that comprehensive program and that objective functional goals and outcomes are tracked.

Document program elements, duration, and measurable outcomes in the medical record.

Conservative Therapy and Stepwise Treatment Expectations

Consideration of conservative modalities (e.g., PENS, TENS) may be implied prior to implantable neuromodulation.

Conservative modalities are generally expected prior to implantable neuromodulation:

Conservative-first implication: Less invasive conservative modalities (for example PENS, TENS, supervised physical therapy, orthoses such as AFOs) are typically considered and documented before pursuing implantable peripheral neuromodulation or restorative neurostimulation when evidence supports a stepwise approach.

Policies and trial protocols commonly required prior conservative care documentation.

Evidence contexts assume prior or concurrent conventional rehabilitation.

Evidence contexts assume prior or concurrent conventional rehabilitation:

Concurrent rehabilitation expectation: Many trials evaluated NMES or FES as an adjunct to conventional rehabilitation; when coverage is considered, documentation should show NMES/FES was provided as part of or in addition to a structured rehabilitation program rather than as a standalone unmonitored therapy.

Prior Authorization, Documentation, and Operational Guidance

Prior Authorization

Prior Authorization — Operational Note

Not applicable in this extract — no explicit operational prior authorization instructions are provided in the referenced source material for Colorado Rocky Mountain Health Plans. Reviewers should follow state-specific rules (Ohio Administrative Code) and the payer’s general prior authorization procedures when applicable.

This extract contains no payer-specific prior authorization or denial criteria.
When Ohio Administrative Code or other referenced rules require medical necessity review, follow OAC 5160-10-01 and 5160-10-15 as applicable.

Note

Authorization / Denial Criteria — Not Specified

No specific authorization or denial criteria are provided in the source excerpts. The material summarizes clinical evidence, guideline recommendations, and device approvals, but does not define an explicit list of covered vs not-covered indications or step-therapy rules for this payer.

Where state rule or contractual language applies, medical necessity must be determined per Ohio Administrative Code 5160-10-01 and 5160-10-15.

Applicable Procedure, Supply, and Device Codes

Applicable CPT CodesCPT

0278T	Transcutaneous electrical modulation pain reprocessing (e.g., scrambler therapy), each treatment session (includes placement of electrodes).
0783T	Transcutaneous auricular neurostimulation, set-up, calibration, and patient education on use of equipment.
63650	Percutaneous implantation of neurostimulator electrode array, epidural.
63655	Laminectomy for implantation of neurostimulator electrodes, plate/paddle, epidural.
63663	Revision including replacement, when performed, of spinal neurostimulator electrode percutaneous array(s), including fluoroscopy, when performed.
63664	Revision including replacement, when performed, of spinal neurostimulator electrode plate/paddle(s) placed via laminotomy or laminectomy, including fluoroscopy, when performed.
63685	Insertion or replacement of spinal neurostimulator pulse generator or receiver, requiring pocket creation and connection between electrode array and pulse generator or receiver.
64555	Percutaneous implantation of neurostimulator electrode array; peripheral nerve (excludes sacral nerve).
64567	Percutaneous electrical nerve field stimulation, cranial nerves, without implantation.
64596	Insertion or replacement of percutaneous electrode array, peripheral nerve, with integrated neurostimulator, including imaging guidance, when performed; initial electrode array.

1–10 of 13

1/2

Applicable HCPCS / Supply CodesHCPCS

A4438	Adhesive clip applied to the skin to secure external electrical nerve stimulator controller, each.
A4543	Supplies for transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator, for nerves in the auricular region, per month.
A4544	Electrode for external lower extremity nerve stimulator for restless legs syndrome.
A4556	Electrodes (e.g., apnea monitor), per pair.
A4557	Lead wires (e.g., apnea monitor), per pair.
A4593	Neuromodulation stimulator system, adjunct to rehabilitation therapy regime, controller.
A4594	Neuromodulation stimulator system, adjunct to rehabilitation therapy regime, mouthpiece, each.
A4595	Electrical stimulator supplies, 2 lead, per month, (e.g., TENS, NMES).
E0720	Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) device, two-lead, localized stimulation.
E0721	Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator for nerves in the auricular region.

1–10 of 15

1/2

Additional HCPCS/L CodesHCPCS

E0764	Functional neuromuscular stimulation, transcutaneous stimulation of sequential muscle groups of ambulation with computer control, used for walking by spinal cord injured, entire system, after completion of training program.
E0770	Functional electrical stimulator, transcutaneous stimulation of nerve and/or muscle groups, any type, complete system, not otherwise specified.
E1399	Durable medical equipment, miscellaneous.
L8678	Electrical stimulator supplies (external) for use with implantable neurostimulator, per month.
L8679	Implantable neurostimulator, pulse generator, any type.
L8680	Implantable neurostimulator electrode, each.
L8682	Implantable neurostimulator radiofrequency receiver.
L8685	Implantable neurostimulator pulse generator, single array, rechargeable, includes extension.
L8686	Implantable neurostimulator pulse generator, single array, nonrechargeable, includes extension.
L8687	Implantable neurostimulator pulse generator, dual array, rechargeable, includes extension.

1–10 of 13

1/2

Functional Electrical Stimulation Devices (FDA product codes)mixed

GZI	Product code for functional electrical stimulation devices (FDA search reference)

Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Devices (FDA product codes)mixed

IPF	Product code for neuromuscular electrical stimulation for muscle rehabilitation (FDA search reference)

Interferential Therapy Devices (FDA product codes)mixed

LIH	Product code for interferential therapy devices (FDA search reference)

Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Devices (FDA product codes)mixed

ILX	Product code for pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation devices (FDA search reference)

Percutaneous/Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (FDA product codes)mixed

NHI	Product code for percutaneous/peripheral nerve stimulation devices (FDA search reference)
GZB	Product code for percutaneous/peripheral nerve stimulation devices (FDA search reference)
GZF	Product code for percutaneous/peripheral nerve stimulation devices (FDA search reference)
BWK	Product code referenced for percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (FDA)

Peripheral Subcutaneous/Field Stimulation (FDA product codes)mixed

LGW	Product code for peripheral subcutaneous/nerve field stimulation devices (FDA search reference)

TENS and Microcurrent Devices (FDA product codes)mixed

GZJ	Product code for TENS and microcurrent devices (FDA search reference)
NUH	Product code referenced for TENS devices (FDA search reference)
NGX	Product code referenced for TENS devices (FDA search reference)

Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Field Stimulation (FDA product codes)mixed

QHH	Product code for IB-Stim percutaneous electrical nerve field stimulation (FDA De Novo)
PZR	Alternate product code listing for IB-Stim (FDA De Novo)

Restorative Neurostimulation (FDA product codes)mixed

QLK	Product code for ReActiv8 Implantable Neurostimulation System (PMA)

Translingual Stimulation Device approvalmixed

De Novo March 25, 2021

Portable Neuromodulation Stimulator De Novo approval reference (translingual device)

inv-67: Post-recovery duration for FES

Post-recovery interval>= 6 months post-recovery from SCI or restorative surgery

Motor unit integrityIntact lower motor units (L1 and below) required

Transfer abilityAbility to transfer independently required

inv-68: Independent standing tolerance for FES candidacy

Treatment Frequency, Session Durations, and Trial Durations

inv-182: Revision/replacement codes and note about fluoroscopy wording

Revision/replacement CPT codes63663, 63664, 63685 (descriptions include 'including fluoroscopy, when performed')

Peripheral electrode codes64596, 64597, 64598 (include imaging guidance when performed)

Unlisted nervous system code64999

inv-183: FES training regimens vary; no explicit policy frequency limits in these chunks

Study regimen variabilityFES training regimens in trials varied (e.g., 40-minute sessions 5 days/week for 8 weeks in poststroke trial); no explicit policy frequency limits provided

Delivery settingsDelivered in-clinic and home-based programs depending on study; supervision and therapist involvement commonly reported

Imaging and Procedural Guidance

Billing Rule

Fluoroscopy inclusion noted for spinal neurostimulator implantation/revision codes

Spinal neurostimulator implantation/revision CPT codes specify inclusion of fluoroscopy when performed; when billing, include appropriate CPT codes that note 'including fluoroscopy, when performed.'

Examples: 63663, 63664 include 'including fluoroscopy, when performed'

Documentation Required

Imaging/guidance implied for PNS and restorative neurostimulation lead placement

Descriptions of PNS and restorative neurostimulation implantation reference lead placement adjacent to target nerves or the medial branch of the dorsal ramus, implying procedural imaging/guidance is commonly used though specific imaging requirements are not mandated.

Not Medically Necessary / Not Covered Modalities

Interferential therapy (IFT) for musculoskeletal disorders, for facilitation of nonsurgical soft tissue healing, or to promote bone fracture healing is listed in the policy as not medically necessary due to insufficient evidence of safety and efficacy. Systematic reviews and guideline statements cited support restricting routine coverage for these indications.

Not applicable (duplicate/reference placeholder).

Definitions and Terminology

inv-131: Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES)

FES definitionDirect application of electric current to intact nerve fibers to cause involuntary purposeful contraction enabling or enhancing functions (surface or implanted electrodes)

Therapeutic vs functionalTherapeutic FES: resistive exercise to prevent atrophy; Functional FES: enables standing, ambulation, grasping, respiration, bowel/bladder functions

Electrode typesElectrodes may be surface-mounted or surgically implanted with a stimulator

inv-132: Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation (NMES)

NMES definitionTranscutaneous application of electrical currents to cause muscle contractions to promote reinnervation, prevent disuse atrophy, relax spasms, and promote voluntary muscle control

Use contexts

Procedural Notes and Imaging Context

Note

Background and Scope

Several reference chunks reiterate investigational or evidence‑limited positions rather than listing explicit payer exclusions. Where evidence is insufficient, modalities are described as investigational or not recommended for routine coverage pending higher‑quality data.

Policy Revision History

2025-10-01HTA update

Hayes, Inc. updated its evolving evidence review on the ReActiv8 Implantable Neurostimulation System and other device briefs cited as background evidence for this policy.

2025-09-02ECRI/Hayes evidence update

Hayes updated its evolving evidence review for IB-Stim (percutaneous electrical nerve field stimulation) and ECRI updated several clinical evidence assessments referenced in the policy bibliography.

2025-07-24ECRI assessment revision

ECRI revised its Clinical Evidence Assessment for the Sprint Peripheral Nerve Stimulation System, which is referenced among background HTAs informing this policy.

Policy Summary

PayerColorado Rocky Mountain Health Plans

PolicyElectrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation (for Ohio Only)

Policy CodePolicy CS036OH.F

Change TypeNo material change

Effective DateMay 1, 2026

Next Review DateN/A

Key ActionRequire prior authorization and medical necessity documentation for implantable neuromodulation and document failure of conservative therapies when coverage is requested.

SourceLink

On This Page

Protocols ranged widely in duration and setting (home vs clinician-applied).

Poststroke dysphagia and motor recovery: NMES combined with conventional therapy improves swallowing function and some motor/ADL outcomes poststroke in multiple RCTs and meta-analyses, with greater effects in certain subgroups (e.g., subacute stage, severe paresis).

Heterogeneity in protocols and study quality noted.

Wolfe et al., Rampazo et al., Chen et al.

Knee osteoarthritis — IFT: Network and meta-analyses show IFT may provide modest short-term pain and function improvements but lacks consistent superiority; IFT may be considered adjunctive but is not preferred to exercise or bracing.

Chen et al., Zeng et al.

Include PT program details and therapist supervision level where available.

Document prior use of AFO or supervised PT where applicable

Hayes HTAs and trials commonly compared device therapies with conservative measures; document prior conservative therapy where applicable:

Document prior conservative therapy: When requesting coverage for FES or NMES interventions compared with conservative therapies, document prior use of AFOs, supervised physical therapy, or other relevant conservative measures and objective outcomes showing inadequate response.

Hayes HTA comparisons frequently used AFO and PT as comparators.

trial of conventional conservative therapy prior to IFT

Trial of conventional conservative therapy prior to IFT:

Conservative therapy before IFT: For chronic low back pain and other musculoskeletal conditions, IFT should be considered only after standard conservative treatments (exercise, PT, medications) have been attempted and documented without sufficient benefit.

Authoritative guidelines emphasize conservative-first approaches for CLBP.

Document prior conservative therapy when requesting coverage for IFT or MENS.

Document prior conservative therapy when requesting coverage for IFT or MENS:

Documentation requirement: Requests for IFT or MENS should include documentation of prior conservative therapy attempts (exercise, PT, medications), baseline validated pain/function scores, and a treatment plan with objective follow-up measures to assess response.

Reflects guideline and systematic review expectations for justification.

Recommend prior trial of conservative therapies before PENS due to limited high-quality evidence.

Recommend prior trial of conservative therapies before PENS:

PENS conservative prerequisite: Because PENS evidence shows short-term benefit but limited long-term data, recommend documentation of prior structured rehabilitation and pharmacologic management before approving PENS interventions.

AAOS and systematic reviews note feasibility and limited long-term evidence.

Evidence base and HTA suggest use primarily for patients unresponsive to conventional management.

Evidence and HTA suggest implantable neuromodulation reserved for refractory cases:

Reserve for refractory cases: PNS and related implantable systems are primarily studied and recommended for patients who have failed guideline‑directed conservative management; document prior therapies and inadequate response before considering implantation.

Ontario Health and other HTAs evaluated populations refractory to conventional management.

Document failure of >=2 conservative treatments

Document failure of ≥2 conservative treatments when considering implantable PNS per guideline guidance:

Failure of conservative treatments: For implantable PNS, document failure of two or more conservative therapies (e.g., physical therapy, medications, injections) consistent with ASIPP guidance and trial selection criteria.>=2 conservative therapies failed

Prior authorization should confirm refractory pain after ≥2 conservative therapies.

Documented trial of OMM (and SCS trial results when relevant) is expected before considering PNFS.

PNFS candidate expectations and documentation:

PNFS prerequisites: Before considering PNFS (subcutaneous field stimulation), document optimized medical management (OMM), prior therapies tried, and, when applicable, results of prior SCS trials; trials typically enrolled participants with FBSS or localized chronic back pain who had failed OMM.

SubQStim and van Gorp trials required prior OMM or defined FBSS populations.

Documented failure of conservative care (medical management and PT) before considering restorative neurostimulation

Restorative neurostimulation (ReActiv8) — conservative care requirement:

Conservative therapy prerequisite for ReActiv8: Trials required failure of conservative management including >90 days of medical management and at least one attempt of physical therapy prior to implantation; documentation of these prior attempts and baseline ODI/NRS is expected for candidate selection.>90 days

Reflects selection criteria used in RCTs and manufacturer labeling.

Conservative therapies attempted and failed

Document that conservative therapies were attempted and failed as required by device labeling where applicable:

Label-based conservative requirement: For devices with labeling that specifies prior therapy failure (for example ReActiv8), ensure documentation that conservative therapies were attempted and failed before proceeding with implantation.

Follow device-specific indications and trial criteria.

FDA clearance/approval is informational only and does not itself guarantee coverage (see FDA section).

Documentation Required

Suggested Supporting Clinical Documentation

Recommended supporting documentation (derived from clinical studies and HTA reports) to include with any clinical review or prior authorization request: diagnostic confirmation, validated baseline measures, trial details, and prior therapy history. Use objective, contemporaneous records where possible.

Diagnosis documentation (imaging reports, specialist diagnosis, operative reports where relevant).
Baseline pain and function scores using validated instruments (NRS/VAS, ODI, WOMAC, 6MWT, IKES, ADL scales).
Detailed description of the proposed device/intervention and treatment protocol (device name, implanted vs percutaneous vs transcutaneous, stimulation parameters, session frequency/duration).
Study-specific elements when citing evidence: sample size, study design (RCT/nonrandomized), follow-up duration, primary outcomes, responder thresholds (e.g., ≥30% or ≥50% pain reduction).
If device-related: FDA approval/cleared indication and relevant product code (informational).

Documentation Required

Required / Recommended Clinical Documentation Elements

Recommended clinical documentation elements to demonstrate medical necessity or to support case review (consolidated from guideline and evidence recommendations). Lack of these elements may lead to requests for additional records or denial.

Prior conservative management attempts and duration (e.g., >90 days of optimized medical management, documented PT attempts, medication trials including classes and durations).
Objective baseline measures: validated pain scores (NRS/VAS), disability/function scales (ODI, WOMAC), and activity metrics (6MWT).
Medication use and analgesic consumption over time (including opioid MMEs when relevant).
Functional baseline and goals: ADLs, ambulation status, gait assessments, transfers, standing tolerance, and device-specific functional criteria (e.g., ability to operate FES controls).
Diagnostic confirmation and clinical baseline relevant to indication (e.g., imaging or physiologic evidence of multifidus dysfunction for restorative neurostimulation; nerve/muscle viability for FES/NMES).
Documentation of trial procedures when applicable (temporary PNS trials, duration and response thresholds, details of stimulation period and percentage pain reduction).
Details of contraindications excluded (e.g., denervated muscle for FES, active infection, severe comorbidity limiting therapy).
Provider specialty and training credentials for procedures requiring specialized techniques (e.g., PENS, implanted PNS, restorative neurostimulation, PENFS).
Follow-up plan and objective measures to evaluate response (timing of reassessments, defined responder criteria such as ≥50% pain reduction or ≥15-point ODI improvement).

Denial Risk

Denial Risk & Documentation Insufficiency

Documentation insufficiency and evidence limitations are common reasons for request denials or coverage uncertainty. Ensure records are legible, contemporaneous, and contain the elements above. When evidence is limited (small trials, short follow-up, heterogeneous cohorts), include rationale tying the individual patient’s clinical profile to available guidance or higher-quality studies.

Missing prior conservative therapy documentation may lead to denial.
When relying on low-quality or small-sample evidence, provide clinician justification for expected benefit in the specific patient.
If citing manufacturer-funded trials, disclose potential conflicts and provide independent corroborating evidence when available.

Independent standing tolerance>= 3 minutes of independent standing tolerance

Balance/control requirementMuscle and joint stability for weight-bearing demonstrating balance and upright support posture

Hand functionDemonstration of hand and finger function to manipulate device controls

inv-69: Age range in TLS mmTBI trial

Age range (mmTBI PoNS RCT)18-65 years

Treatment program length (example trial)5-week in-clinic + home program (trial formats varied)

Home training frequency (trial example)Twice daily home training reported in combined PT schedules

Outcome dependence on protocolFunctional outcomes varied by timing, intensity, and concomitant exercise programs

inv-184: NMES application sessions — study regimens varied

NMES session variabilityProtocols ranged from daily programs for 4–12 weeks to single sessions or multiple sessions over days; no standardized coverage frequency limit specified

Postoperative NMES examplesExamples include 20 sessions over 5 days (THR) and 6-week home-based programs for ACL/CP studies

Adjunctive useNMES commonly studied as adjunct to conventional PT rather than standalone therapy

inv-185: IFT/TENS/EMS frequency notes

IFT/TENS/EMS parameter heterogeneityTrial parameters vary widely across studies; no standardized frequency limits specified in this document segment

Session length examplesSome trials required >=8 treatment sessions per group as eligibility; individual session duration varied by study

ComparatorsIFT/TENS/EMS often compared with active controls (exercise, massage) or sham; evidence inconsistent

inv-186: IFT session protocols varied (20–30 minutes/session; multiple/wk) — no standard frequency limit specified

Typical IFT session protocol20–30 minutes per session reported in some trials; multiple sessions per week described

Study heterogeneityProtocols and total course varied; no standardized policy frequency limit specified

Clinical contextsIFT evaluated across knee OA and fracture/soft-tissue trials with differing schedules

inv-187: PENS / microcurrent session variability (single to 16 sessions reported)

PENS session countsPublished studies ranged from single-session protocols to up to 16 sessions; immediate/short-term benefits reported

Ultrasound guidanceSome effective trials used ultrasound-guided PENS needle placement (e.g., femoral nerve in ACL RCT)

Follow-up durationMost studies reported short-term outcomes; limited data on repeated long-term courses

inv-188: PENFS / PENS frequency notes

PENFS/PENS variabilityEvidence base small and heterogeneous; session counts and schedules varied across auricular and peripheral PENFS studies

Short-term effectsMany studies report short-term symptom improvement (up to 12 weeks) with limited long-term data

Study designsIncludes RCTs, registry and open-label studies with different dosing paradigms

inv-189: PNS trial then implant — temporary trials typically ~60 days

Typical temporary PNS trial durationTemporary percutaneous PNS trials typically reported for ~60 days before decision on permanent implant

Daily usage during trialSome studies instructed use for at least 6 hours/day (Gilmore et al.) during the 60-day trial period

Implant decision based on responsePermanent implant considered after successful responder trial (commonly >=50% pain reduction in trials)

inv-190: PNFS permanent system placement after responder trial (procedural timing)

Permanent PNFS placement timingPermanent system placement reported after responder identification during trial phases (trial→implant sequence described)

Responder definitionTrials often used >=50% pain reduction during trial to define responders prior to permanent placement

Trial limitationsSome PNFS RCTs were terminated early or underpowered and report limited long-term data

inv-191: No procedural frequency limits described in this text segment

No procedural frequency limits statedThis document segment does not specify procedural frequency limits for implantation or repeat procedures

Fluoroscopy wordingSome CPT descriptions reference 'including fluoroscopy, when performed' for revisions/replacements

Coverage decisionsFrequency/time limits would be determined by payer policy and supporting clinical documentation

inv-192: Scrambler therapy — typically 10 sessions over 2 weeks (30–50 minutes/session) in trials

Typical scrambler therapy courseApproximately 10 sessions over 2 weeks used in trials (30–50 minutes per session)

Session duration examplesTrials commonly used 30–45 minute sessions delivered daily on working days

Sustainability of effectSome studies show short-term benefit with variable durability; booster sessions may be needed

inv-193: PoNS (translingual stimulation) regimens in trials: multi-week programs with home training twice daily

PoNS/TLS trial regimensTrials used multi-week programs (e.g., 5-week in-clinic + 12-week home components; 14-week combined PT schedules) with home training twice daily

Session frequencyHome training typically performed twice daily as part of combined PT regimens

Follow-up after stopping therapySome trials included follow-up periods (e.g., 12 weeks) after discontinuation to assess durability

inv-194: (empty/filler frequency-limits item)

(No content)

ReActiv8 leads placed next to medial branch of dorsal ramus as described in trials

Documentation Required

Imaging confirmation required in some FES trials (CT/MRI for stroke)

Some FES poststroke studies required CT or MRI confirmation of stroke diagnosis for study eligibility; include imaging confirmation when similar diagnostic certainty is needed for authorization.

Study eligibility included cranial CT or MRI confirmation and defined disease duration

Documentation Required

FES/NMES — focus on functional tests rather than routine imaging

For FES and NMES, the reviewed evidence used functional tests (6MWT, peak VO2, FMA, ADL measures) rather than uniform imaging requirements; prior authorization should focus on objective functional baselines and outcomes rather than routine imaging.

Primary outcomes in trials included 6MWT, peak VO2, FMA, and ADL measures

Documentation Required

NMES studies sometimes used imaging for outcomes (MRI, videofluoroscopy)

Some NMES studies used imaging for outcome measures (MRI for muscle volume) or videofluoroscopic swallowing studies for dysphagia outcomes; these were study-specific outcome measures rather than preauthorization imaging mandates.

NMES dysphagia studies used videofluoroscopic swallowing studies as outcome assessments

Note

Electrotherapies for CLBP — imaging not uniformly specified

Procedural imaging context varies across electrotherapies for chronic low back pain and is not uniformly specified in the policy; include imaging only if clinically indicated by the indication or device labeling.

Documentation Required

PENS — ultrasound guidance often used in trials

PENS trials often used ultrasound guidance for needle placement; consider ultrasound guidance documentation when PENS was delivered under image guidance in cited studies.

Ultrasound-guided femoral nerve PENS used in ACL RCT

Documentation Required

PNS placement — document procedural technique and guidance used

Descriptions of PNS placement in trials reference procedural details but do not mandate specific imaging; document technique and guidance used if relevant to the prior authorization.

Note

PNS placement — imaging not specified in these chunks

Reference-only — procedural imaging details for PNS placement were not specified in the referenced chunks.

Not applicable (duplicate/reference placeholder).

Peripheral nerve field stimulation devices have not been specifically approved by the FDA for treatment of pain or muscle rehabilitation; clinical use in studies commonly reflects off‑label applications using SCS hardware. Because of this lack of device‑specific approval for pain indications, PNFS devices are described as not having dedicated regulatory approval for these uses.

Applied in postoperative and neurologic conditions as adjunct to rehabilitation

Distinction from FESNMES is focused on muscle rehabilitation where nerve supply is intact; FES may be functional in goal

inv-133: Microcurrent Electrical Nerve Stimulation (MENS)

MENS/MCT definitionDelivery of microampere-range currents intended for pain relief and wound healing; subsensorial and distinct from TENS (microamp vs milliamp range)

Regulatory noteDevices sometimes categorized with TENS for regulatory purposes though mechanisms differ

Evidence summarySmall RCTs and case series exist; evidence insufficient for broad conclusions

inv-134: Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (PENS)

PENS definitionMinimally invasive pain treatment using acupuncture-like needles connected to an external power source inserted percutaneously to modulate hypersensitive nerves

Procedure notesNeedle electrodes differ from cutaneous TENS; ultrasound guidance often used in trials

Evidence qualityStudies small and heterogeneous; short-term benefits reported in some RCTs

inv-135: Interferential Therapy (IFT)

IFT definitionDelivery of two medium-frequency pulsed currents via skin electrodes producing a low-frequency current aimed at deeper muscle penetration for analgesia and functional effect

Theoretical mechanismsMay increase endorphin release and parasympathetic activity to reduce edema and pain

Evidence stanceInsufficient high-quality evidence for many MSK and fracture healing indications

inv-136: Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (PENS) duplicate

PENS (duplicate)Percutaneous needle-based neuromodulation delivered percutaneously for analgesia; study protocols variable

Immediate effectsImmediate reductions in local pressure pain thresholds reported; short-term effects common

Long-term dataLimited long-term outcome data available

inv-137: Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Field Stimulation

Percutaneous electrical nerve field stimulationTargets central pain pathways via auricular branch of vagus nerve using low-voltage alternating frequencies; proposed for conditions like IBS

Evidence baseSome favorable small trials and registry data in pediatric IBS; overall quality limited

Typical courseMost studies report 4-week treatment courses with follow-up to 12 weeks; long-term durability unclear

inv-138: Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (PNS)

PNS definitionImplantation or placement of electrodes near a peripheral nerve to deliver impulses that disrupt pain signal transmission (examples: StimRouter, SPRINT, Freedom)

Temporary vs permanentSystems include temporary percutaneous leads (e.g., SPRINT) and permanent implantable systems (e.g., StimRouter, Nalu)

Indications studiedChronic neuropathic and postoperative pain refractory to conservative care

inv-139: Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation (PNFS)

PNFS/Peripheral nerve field stimulationImplanted electrode arrays in subcutaneous tissue to stimulate a painful field when target nerve distribution is not well defined

Clinical roleUsed for localized chronic pain or as add-on to SCS in FBSS studies

Evidence statusLimited RCTs and case series; further robust trials needed

inv-140: Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS)

TENS definitionNoninvasive electrical current via skin electrodes to reduce pain perception by activating peripheral nerves or stimulating endorphin release

DistinctionDistinct from NMES/FES which aim to elicit muscle contraction for rehabilitation

Regulatory noteTENS devices are regulated as Class II devices by FDA

inv-141: Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) duplicate

FES (alternate definition)Application of electrical stimulation to elicit functional muscle contractions to improve strength, gait, or other neurologic/musculoskeletal functions

Modes of deliverySurface electrodes or implanted systems used depending on functional goal

Outcome variabilityEffectiveness varies by condition, injury severity, and timing of intervention

inv-142: FES (definition variant)

FES (definition variant)Direct application of electric current to intact nerve fibers to produce involuntary, purposeful contraction enabling standing, ambulation, grasping, or other functions

Therapeutic goalsPrevent atrophy and promote conditioning or enable functional tasks

Electrode placementSurface or implanted electrodes; may be part of comprehensive rehab program

inv-143: 6MWT definition

6MWT definitionSix-Minute Walk Test — distance walked barefoot in six minutes; used as a primary outcome in poststroke FES trials

Use caseAssesses functional ambulation and endurance in rehabilitation trials

Trial exampleUsed as primary outcome in Matsumoto et al. poststroke foot drop trial

inv-144: CCFES definition

CCFES definitionContralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation — stimulation of the paretic limb controlled by voluntary movement of contralateral limb to assist motor recovery

Clinical comparisonsStudied versus cyclic NMES for poststroke upper limb recovery with some trials favoring CCFES on select outcomes

Typical protocolDaily stimulation sessions (e.g., 20 minutes/day) combined with task practice in trials

inv-145: NMES (definition)

NMES definition (concise)Transcutaneous electrical currents to evoke muscle contractions for strengthening, preventing atrophy, and augmenting rehabilitation in conditions with intact nerve supply

Clinical indicationsUsed for disuse atrophy, postoperative rehabilitation, and adjunctive stroke/CP therapy where nerve supply is intact

Protocol variabilityDosage, frequency, and duration vary widely across studies and indications

inv-146: NMES (definition variant)

NMES (variant)Use of electrical currents to evoke muscle contractions for strengthening, functional recovery, edema/DVT prophylaxis, or augmenting therapy in neurologic disorders

Evidence notePositive signals for quadriceps strength recovery after ACL and muscle volume gains in CP; long-term carryover variable

Adjunctive roleUsually applied alongside conventional physical therapy rather than as replacement

inv-147: CCFES (definition variant)

CCFES (variant)A form of NMES where stimulation to the paretic limb is controlled by voluntary movement of the contralateral limb, used to improve upper limb motor function poststroke

Outcome evidenceMeta-analyses and trials report improvements in FMA, Box and Block, and other motor measures compared with cNMES in some studies

LimitationsHeterogeneity in stroke phase, lack of blinding, and small RCT counts limit conclusions

inv-148: IFT (definition variant)

IFT (variant)Medium-frequency electrical stimulation applied via surface electrodes (e.g., 4,000–4,100 Hz reported) intended to provide deeper analgesia or functional effects

Clinical evidenceStudies show mixed short-term pain/function benefits in knee OA and CLBP; heterogeneity limits recommendations

Session parametersTrials used variable session duration and frequency; standardized protocol lacking

inv-149: Interferential Therapy (IFT) additional definition

IFT additional noteIFT may produce deeper muscle penetration via crisscross medium-frequency currents; evidence for superiority is limited and heterogeneous

Indications studiedKnee osteoarthritis, fractures, shoulder conditions, and CLBP among others

RecommendationLarge, high-quality RCTs with standardized protocols recommended to establish efficacy

inv-150: MENS / MCT definition

MENS/MCT definition (concise)Very low–amplitude electrical currents intended for pain relief and tissue healing; subsensorial compared with TENS

SynonymsAlso called frequency-specific microcurrent therapy, microelectrical therapy, microcurrent therapy

Evidence statusSmall RCTs and mixed systematic reviews; insufficient evidence for broad clinical recommendations

inv-151: MENS / Microcurrent Therapy (variant definitions)

MENS evidence variantSmall RCTs in postoperative and musculoskeletal pain show mixed results; TENS often outperformed MENS in small trials

SafetyNo serious adverse events reported in pooled small studies

Research needLarger, well-designed RCTs needed to confirm effects and define protocols

inv-152: PENS (definition variant)

PENS definition (concise)Percutaneous needle electrodes connected to external power to modulate peripheral nerves for analgesia; minimally invasive and distinct from TENS

Guidance methodsUltrasound-guidance often used in trials for targeted needle placement

Typical outcomesImmediate and short-term pain reductions commonly reported; long-term evidence limited

inv-153: PENFS / PENS definition

PENFS/PENS combined definitionPercutaneous auricular or peripheral electrical nerve field stimulation delivered via percutaneous electrodes to modulate pain signaling; studied in GI and postoperative settings

Pediatric registry dataMulticenter registries report clinical improvements up to 12 weeks in children with DGBIs; RCT evidence limited

Typical durationMost studies report 4–12 week treatment windows with scarce long-term data

inv-154: PNS (definition/temporary systems)

PNS definition (concise)Percutaneous placement of leads near peripheral nerves (temporary or permanent) to deliver electrical stimulation for chronic or postoperative pain

Device examplesSPRINT (temporary), StimRouter, Freedom, Nalu (permanent) referenced in trials and HTAs

Responder thresholdsTrials commonly used >=50% pain reduction to define responders

inv-155: Peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) definition

PNFS/SubQ definitionPeripheral subcutaneous field stimulation with implanted electrode arrays placed within subcutaneous tissue to stimulate a broad painful field

Clinical roleStudied as standalone therapy or as add-on to SCS for FBSS and localized chronic back pain

Evidence limitationsSmall trials, early termination, and heterogeneity limit definitive conclusions

inv-156: Percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) definition

Percutaneous PNS definitionPercutaneous placement of leads near peripheral nerves for temporary therapy (e.g., 60 days) or placement of permanent leads for longer-term therapy

Usage parametersSome protocols instructed 6–12 hours/day of usage during temporary trials

Outcome measuresTrials measured pain reduction, function, opioid use, and long-term follow-up where available

inv-157: PNFS / SubQ stimulation definition

PNFS/SubQ variantSubcutaneous stimulation targeting localized pain fields; may be used when target nerve distribution is diffuse or not well defined

Trial-to-implant pathwayPhase 1 responder identification often precedes permanent implantation in trial designs

Study contextsEvaluated in FBSS and chronic localized back pain populations

inv-159: PEMF stimulation (definition variant)

PEMF (variant)Evaluated in knee OA and non-specific LBP; pooled analyses show nonsignificant short-term pain benefit in some reviews

Treatment regimen examplesTypical trials used 4–6 week regimens with variable session frequency

RecommendationLarger RCTs with standardized parameters needed to establish clinical utility

inv-160: Restorative neurostimulation (ReActiv8) definition

ReActiv8 definitionImplantable restorative neurostimulation system targeting multifidus activation for refractory mechanical chronic low back pain

Indication summaryIndicated for adults with multifidus dysfunction who failed conservative therapy and are not candidates for spine surgery (PMA)

Programming/deliveryParticipants instructed to activate device for two 30-minute sessions per day in trials

inv-161: Scrambler therapy definition

Scrambler therapy definitionNoninvasive transcutaneous neuromodulation ('Calmare') delivering patterned electrical stimulation to alter pain signaling; typically daily sessions over ~2 weeks

Typical protocol30–50 minute sessions delivered daily for ~10 working days in many trials

Evidence statusSmall RCTs and pilot studies report short-term analgesic effects; larger trials needed

inv-162: Scrambler therapy (definition variant)

Scrambler therapy variantAlso called transcutaneous electrical modulation pain reprocessing; studied in CIPN, PDN, burn-related neuropathic pain with variable results

Outcome durabilityShort-term benefits commonly reported; long-term durability inconsistent across studies

SafetyGenerally safe and well tolerated in reported studies

inv-163: Translingual stimulation (TLS)/PoNS definition

TLS/PoNS definitionTranslingual stimulation (PoNS) delivers electrical stimulation to the dorsal tongue combined with targeted physical therapy to improve gait and balance

Delivery modelPortable mouthpiece device with in-clinic and at-home training components; home training often twice daily

Indications studiedmmTBI, MS, and chronic balance deficits; RCTs show improvements in balance/gait when combined with PT in select trials

inv-164: TLS definition (duplicate)

TLS conciseTranslingual Stimulation (TLS) — nonimplantable tongue stim device used adjunctively with PT for gait/balance deficits

Typical populationAdults with mild–moderate TBI or MS in trial settings (age limits applied in device approvals/trials)

Program componentsMulti-week supervised PT plus twice-daily home use in trials

inv-165: ReActiv8 (definition duplicate)

ReActiv8 (duplicate)Implantable restorative neurostimulation system for multifidus activation in refractory CLBP (PMA-approved)

PMA indicationAdults with imaging/physiological evidence of multifidus dysfunction who failed conservative therapy and are not candidates for spine surgery

Therapy scheduleDevice used twice daily for 30 minutes in clinical trials

inv-166: ECRI/Hayes evidence assessments (definitions/reference)

ECRI/Hayes assessmentsECRI and Hayes evidence assessments and HTAs referenced as sources for clinical evidence summaries and device-specific reviews

PurposeUsed to evaluate the strength/quality of evidence and inform coverage stance

CaveatFindings from these assessments are summarized throughout the policy and noted where evidence is limited or industry‑sponsored

2024-10-01Hayes HTA publication

Hayes published and later updated multiple evidence analysis research briefs (e.g., Nalu, FES foot drop HTA) that were used as background assessments for coverage considerations.

2024-03-07ECRI assessment publicationLatest

ECRI published or maintained Clinical Evidence Assessments (including Freedom Peripheral Nerve Stimulator and FES assessments) cited as background evidence for this policy.