CurrentUnitedHealthcarePolicy CS036NM.D

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

Defines and reviews various percutaneous, transcutaneous, implanted, and electromagnetic neuromodulation and functional electrical stimulation therapies relevant to pain management and rehabilitation, summarizing mechanisms, device types, and selected evidence — content covers technology descriptions and evidence summaries in this document section.

Policy Summary

PayerUnitedHealthcare

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

Policy CodePolicy N/A

Change TypeNo material clinical or coverage changes

Effective DateMay 1, 2026

Next Review DateN/A

Key ActionDocument prior conservative therapy and trial stimulation results when requesting authorization for implantable or temporary peripheral nerve stimulation.

SourceLink

POLICY UPDATE CHANGES

No material clinical or coverage changes in this revision.

~15distinct therapies described

23RCTs cited in one FES review

80%long-term FES responder rate (cohort)

June 16, 2020ReActiv8 PMA approval

2024-2025

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.

Coverage Criteria and Evidence Summaries

inv-01: Evidence summaries for FES across indications

Key evidence summaries relevant to coverage decisions

Spinal cord injury evidence: Mixed evidence: cohort studies and small trials report improvements in muscle strength, ambulation, and respiratory function with FES in adults with complete motor SCI, but study quality is low and findings are inconsistent across populations and outcomes.

Hayes HTA found 15 studies (9 RCTs) with overall low-quality evidence; adults with complete motor SCI often showed strength/functional gains while incomplete SCI evidence was limited

Cerebral palsy evidence: Multiple small RCTs and reviews report improvements in ankle dorsiflexion strength, gait kinematics, walking speed, and step length with FES/NMES in children with CP, but activity/participation benefits and long-term durability are uncertain due to small samples and heterogeneous protocols.

Moll systematic review and Zhu meta-analysis summarized modest physiologic and gait benefits

Stroke (acute/subacute) evidence: Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggests FES combined with supervised exercise can improve trunk control, walking distance, and some motor outcomes in early/subacute stroke, but heterogeneity and methodological limitations reduce certainty of durable functional benefit.

Hayes HTA and multiple systematic reviews report low-quality evidence and recommend further RCTs

Stroke (chronic) evidence: Evidence for assistive or rehabilitative FES in chronic stroke (foot drop ≥1 year) is low quality and inconsistent; many RCTs show no superiority to AFOs for walking outcomes.

Hayes chronic stroke HTA found low-quality body of evidence with no consistent walking improvements vs AFO

Cardiorespiratory and musculoskeletal indications: Moderate- to low-quality meta-analyses indicate FES/NMES can improve peak VO2, 6-minute walk distance and QOL in CHF and can augment strength and functional recovery after joint replacement or ACL surgery when added to rehab, but heterogeneity and small trials limit conclusions about magnitude and durability of benefit.

Wang et al. (CHF), Sun et al. (joint replacement), Li et al. (ACL) report pooled improvements with limitations

inv-02: Covered when evidence supports clinical benefit with caveats

Evidence-based coverage considerations and effectiveness summaries by indication

Stroke - foot drop and upper limb: FES may improve ankle dorsiflexion, balance, and functional mobility and can show limited improvements in gait speed when combined with supervised exercises; evidence quality is low and long-term durability unproven.

Systematic reviews/meta-analyses show benefits when combined with supervised exercise but low certainty

Stroke - upper extremity (CCFES vs NMES): Contralaterally controlled FES (CCFES) showed greater improvements than cyclic NMES on some motor outcomes in small meta-analyses, but trials are few and heterogeneous; additional RCTs are needed.

Huang et al. and related RCTs report modest advantages but limited evidence

Multiple Sclerosis - foot drop: Low-quality evidence suggests FES improves walking speed/duration and perceived exertion similarly to AFOs; studies are small and heterogeneous, requiring further RCTs vs AFOs to confirm benefits and durability.

Hayes HTA (MS) found low-quality evidence

inv-03: Evidence summaries by indication

Evidence statements from RCTs and systematic reviews (select findings):

ACL postoperative rehabilitation: Systematic reviews (11 studies, n=202) found NMES plus conventional PT significantly increased quadriceps strength in short- and long-term follow-up compared with conventional rehabilitation alone; Lysholm scores showed no significant difference in pooled analyses.

Earlier initiation (≤1 week) associated with greater strength gains

Total hip replacement (THR) recovery and DVT prophylaxis: Small RCTs (e.g., geko device) reported reduced early postoperative pain, reduced calf swelling, and increased femoral vein peak velocity with NMES compared with controls; trials are single-center and short-term.

Zhao et al., Calbiyik and Yilmaz reported potential benefits but recommended larger studies

Amputation rehabilitation: Pilot RCTs suggest NMES plus traditional rehabilitation may accelerate early residual limb strength recovery, though differences may not be sustained post-prosthesis; further research needed.

Talbot et al. pilot RCT showed early strength gains

inv-04: Evidence-based coverage considerations

Evidence summary and implications — coverage stance varies by indication based on limited or low-certainty evidence.

Stroke - upper limb: RCTs and systematic reviews show mixed results: CCFES may improve some measures (e.g., sEMG responses) but is not consistently superior to NMES or conventional therapy; further validation is needed.

Kristensen, Huang and related studies show subgroup benefits but overall heterogeneity

Dysphagia after stroke: Systematic reviews indicate NMES combined with swallowing therapy can improve swallowing function and QOL, but heterogeneity and limited study quality prompt NICE to advise use only in research or special arrangements.

NICE guidance (IPG634) recommends research/special arrangements

COPD-related weakness/exercise intolerance: Meta-analyses indicate NMES plus pulmonary rehabilitation can improve exercise capacity, quadriceps strength, and QOL in some studies, but certainty is low and NMES alone should not replace pulmonary rehab.

Liou et al., Wu et al. report low–very low GRADE certainty

inv-05: Evidence and guideline considerations

Evidence synthesis and guideline conclusions relevant to coverage decisions

IFT evidence summary: Systematic reviews and network meta-analyses show heterogeneous results: some meta-analyses report modest short-term pain and function improvements with IFT in knee OA and MSK conditions, but inconsistency across trials and guideline statements (e.g., NICE, ACP) highlight insufficient evidence for routine use in many indications.

Chen et al., Hussein et al., NICE and ACP guidance referenced

MENS/MCT evidence summary: Small RCTs and systematic reviews report some positive short-term effects on pain and function with microcurrent therapies for masticatory myofascial pain and acute knee pain, with no serious adverse events reported, but studies are underpowered and heterogeneous.

Bavarian et al., Iijima review, Lawson RCT show limited positive findings

Guideline stance: Professional guidelines (e.g., ACP, NICE) generally recommend nonpharmacological first-line care (exercise, multidisciplinary rehab) and conclude evidence is insufficient to support routine use of some electrotherapies (eg, IFT) for LBP and OA; NICE recommends research-only or special arrangements for transcutaneous NMES in dysphagia.

inv-06: PENS / PENS as adjunct

Summary of evidence-based stance and criteria inference from document (not a payer decision):

Evidence summary: PENS (percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) RCTs and systematic reviews report immediate to short-term reductions in pain and some functional gains when used alone or adjunctively, but long-term benefits and high-quality evidence are limited and protocols heterogeneous.

Plaza-Manzano systematic review and recent RCTs (e.g., Caballero-López) show short-term pain reductions

inv-07: Microcurrent therapies (MCT/MENS/MET/FSM)

Evidence summary and limitations:

Effectiveness and safety: Microcurrent therapies (MCT/MENS/MET/FSM) have small RCTs and systematic reviews reporting reductions in pain and some functional measures across knee, shoulder, and masticatory conditions; pooled analyses report no serious adverse events but small sample sizes and heterogeneous protocols limit confidence.

Iijima & Takahashi, Bavarian, Lawson and Ranker trials summarize limited positive findings

inv-08: Inferred coverage criteria for consideration

Coverage consideration when ALL of the following are met (inferred from studies/reviews):

Patient selection: Patient has a diagnosable condition consistent with populations studied (eg, pediatric DGBI meeting Rome criteria, chronic neuropathic pain refractory to conventional management, or specific postoperative indications tested).

Registry and trial populations reflect these selections (eg, PENFS in pediatric DGBI; PNS in chronic neuropathic pain)

Prior conservative therapy: Documented failure of conventional medical management (multiple pharmacologic trials or therapies) or inadequate response to standard rehabilitation, as many studies enrolled refractory patients.

Chogle registry and multiple PNS studies report prior therapy failures

Documented outcomes measurement: Baseline and follow-up validated patient-reported outcome measures (eg, API, NSS, NRS, ODI) are used to demonstrate clinically meaningful response during any trial period.

Most studies required standardized baseline and outcome instruments

inv-09: Coverage-relevant evidence and guideline stance

Guideline and evidence summary relevant to coverage determinations:

Implantable PNS after conservative treatment: ASIPP supports implantable PNS for moderate to severe chronic pain refractory to two or more conservative treatments; implantable systems may follow a successful temporary PNS trial (eg, 60 days) or selective medial branch stimulation in certain contexts.refractory to ≥2 conservative treatments

ASIPP guideline statements (Manchikanti et al.) endorse stepwise approach

PNS evidence summary: RCTs and case series demonstrate clinically meaningful pain reduction in selected peripheral neuropathic and postoperative pain indications, but study limitations (small size, heterogeneity, unblinded designs) restrict generalizability.study-specific

Ontario Health, Hatheway, Goree, Gilmore provide examples of responder rates and trial designs

inv-10: PNFS / SubQ add-on

PNFS / SubQ add-on coverage considerations

PNFS/SubQ add-on to SCS (evidence-based criteria): Consider add-on SubQ/PNFS when a documented SCS trial produced ≥50% leg pain relief but <50% back pain relief and SubQ leads are implanted to address residual back pain, with trial or short-term evidence of benefit (eg, van Gorp RCT showing greater back pain reduction at 3 months).trial response criteria as per trial (≥50% leg reduction; <50% back reduction)

van Gorp multicenter RCT demonstrated 42.9% vs 4.2% ≥50% back pain reduction at 3 months

inv-11: PNFS standalone

PNFS standalone coverage considerations

PNFS alone: Small randomized and crossover trials report safety and efficacy for localized chronic back pain with PNFS, but evidence is limited; consider conditional coverage when conservative therapy has failed and trial stimulation demonstrates a responder effect (eg, ≥50% pain reduction).responder defined as ≥50% pain reduction during trial

McRoberts crossover RCT and small PNFS trials show responder-based selection

inv-12: PEMF therapy

PEMF coverage stance and criteria

PEMF for pain or function: Evidence is heterogeneous: some RCTs and systematic reviews report short-term pain and function benefits in OA and nonspecific LBP, but overall findings are inconsistent and trial parameters vary widely; routine coverage for PEMF for pain or to enhance fracture healing is not supported without condition-specific, high-quality evidence or enrollment in research.many trials short-term (≤12 weeks); effect size and durability vary

Kull, Picelli, Yang, Chen reviews highlight variable results and call for larger standardized RCTs

inv-13: Restorative neurostimulation

Restorative neurostimulation

Restorative neurostimulation: Published literature historically provided insufficient evidence to support routine use for CLBP; newer trials (RESTORE, Gilligan) are promising but methodological concerns and guideline/appraisal assessments call for additional corroborating comparative studies before broad coverage.

Evolving assessments (ECRI, Hayes) note weak support historically; RESTORE and Gilligan provide more recent RCT data

inv-14: Restorative neurostimulation — potential covered criteria

Evidence synthesis and trial inclusion criteria inform potential coverage when ALL following are met (as reflected in trial populations):

Patient selection: Chronic mechanical low back pain associated with multifidus dysfunction, refractory to conservative care and not a candidate for spine surgery.based on trial populations

RESTORE and Gilligan trials enrolled patients with impaired multifidus control and prior conservative management

Conservative therapy failure: Documented failure of >90 days of medical management including at least one course of physical therapy prior to consideration of implantation.>90 days

RESTORE and Gilligan inclusion criteria required >90 days of prior management

Severity metrics: Baseline disability and pain metrics consistent with trial criteria (eg, ODI 30–60; NRS 6–9) to match studied populations.

inv-15: Scrambler therapy — potential covered criteria

Evidence is limited and heterogeneous; coverage (if any) should require documentation of:

Indication: Specific chronic neuropathic pain diagnosis documented with baseline pain scores and duration (many trials enrolled chronic pain >3 months).chronic >3 months

Scrambler trials typically included chronic pain populations

Treatment course: Defined treatment course (eg, ~10 sessions of 30–50 minutes over ~10 working days) with objective pre/post pain assessments to document response.10 sessions typical

Jin et al. meta-analysis and RCT protocols used 10 sessions

Evidence requirement: Supportive randomized controlled trial data for the specific indication showing clinically meaningful pain reduction or decreased analgesic use; absent such data, restrict use to trials or special arrangements.

inv-16: Scrambler therapy — evidence and guideline-based stance

Summary of evidence-based coverage stance for scrambler therapy

Evidence summary: Randomized trials and systematic reviews report mixed and generally low-quality evidence for scrambler therapy; some trials show short-term pain reduction and reduced analgesic use but longer-term and high-quality data are lacking.

Jin meta-analysis and Hayes reviews note small RCTs and heterogeneity

Guideline recommendations: Major oncology and supportive care guidelines (eg, ASCO; ESMO/EONS/EANO) do not recommend routine use of scrambler therapy for CIPN and suggest restricting use to clinical trials or specialized programs.

Guideline-based nonrecommendation supports limited/experimental coverage approach

inv-17: PoNS/TLS — evidence and clinical application

Summary of evidence-based coverage stance for translingual stimulation (PoNS/TLS)

Evidence summary: PoNS/TLS RCTs and pilot studies report improvements in balance and gait when combined with targeted physical therapy in mmTBI and some MS cohorts, but evidence is limited, often from a small number of centers, and requires replication; ECRI and other assessments consider the evidence inconclusive.

Ptito, Tyler, and ECRI assessments describe modest benefits with methodological caveats

Clinical application: Reported benefit occurs primarily when PoNS/TLS is paired with structured PT in patients with plateaued recovery; adoption may be limited to specialized rehab settings or research protocols.

Trials used combined TLS+PT programs (5–14 weeks) with high adherence monitoring

Evidence across multiple indications for functional electrical stimulation (FES) and related neuromuscular stimulation modalities is inconsistent and frequently limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneous protocols, short follow-up, and methodological weaknesses (e.g., lack of blinding). Systematic reviews and HTAs note promising short-term improvements in strength, gait parameters, and quality-of-life measures in selected populations (SCI, CP, stroke, CHF), but the overall certainty of evidence is low and long-term durable functional benefits remain unproven. Further high-quality, large randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm sustained clinical benefit and define optimal treatment parameters.

Stroke rehabilitation trials cited in the evidence base commonly used explicit study exclusion criteria that may limit generalizability, including severe cognitive or communication disorders, severe cardiopulmonary/renal/hepatic impairment, presence of cardiac pacemakers, psychiatric disorders, foot drop from peripheral nerve injury, noncontinuous treatment, or missing follow-up. Trial designs for acute/subacute and chronic stroke varied in timing since event, comparators (AFO, conventional rehab, sham), and required the diagnostic confirmation of stroke by CT or MRI in many protocols.

Device-specific claims (for example, single-system promotional claims) are not consistently supported by robust, high-quality evidence. ECRI and Hayes assessments found that certain proprietary systems have only small, single-center RCTs or limited pre-post studies available, and larger multicenter blinded RCTs are generally recommended before broad adoption. Where device evidence is inconclusive, use may be considered experimental or subject to evidence requirements.

For masticatory muscle spasticity and related conditions in cerebral palsy, systematic reviews reported very low–certainty evidence and concluded there is insufficient evidence to support use of botulinum toxin or masticatory muscle strengthening programs alone or in combination with NMES; individualized clinical decisions and further trials were recommended.

Interferential therapy (IFT) lacks sufficient high-quality evidence for many musculoskeletal indications. Systematic reviews and guideline statements cite predominantly small, heterogeneous studies and conclude the evidence is inadequate to establish safety and efficacy for MSK pain, fractures, or as a routine therapeutic option. Guideline panels (e.g., ACP) note insufficient evidence to determine benefit for low back pain.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) explicitly recommends that IFT should not be offered for knee osteoarthritis and for chronic primary pain, citing inconsistent findings, mostly small trials, and lack of clinically meaningful benefit in the evaluated studies.

NICE guidance also recommends against offering PENS for low back pain with or without sciatica because the evidence base is small and of low or very low quality. HTA summaries (e.g., Hayes) similarly found the PENS evidence insufficient to support PENS as established therapy for chronic low back pain.

Many percutaneous electrical nerve field stimulation (PENFS) and peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) indications are supported only by small studies, registries, or limited RCTs. Where evidence is insufficient or weak, these indications may be considered experimental or excluded from routine coverage pending larger, higher-quality trials.

Hayes and other evidence reviews repeatedly identified insufficient, low-quality, or unclear evidence for some systems and indications (for example, earlier assessments of StimRouter, Nalu, and other PNS systems). These assessments recommend additional well-designed, multicenter, blinded RCTs before definitive conclusions about efficacy and routine coverage can be made.

Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy has an inconsistent evidence base for bone healing and pain. Recent systematic reviews of acute fracture healing report few RCTs with no consistent statistically significant benefit; guideline-level interpretation is that PEMF should not be routinely used to enhance bone healing in acute fractures and routine use for pain indications is not supported without more robust data.

Interventions that lack independent, blinded, or high-quality comparative data—such as some restorative neurostimulation and newer PNS studies—are at risk of exclusion from routine coverage. ECRI and Hayes assessments emphasize risk of bias, small sample sizes, and limited comparator data as reasons to withhold broad coverage until stronger evidence is available.

Guidelines for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy and oncology-related pain (ASCO; ESMO/EONS/EANO) do not recommend routine use of scrambler therapy for CIPN due to inconsistent, small trials and low-quality evidence. HTA reviews similarly judge the scrambler evidence insufficient to support routine use outside clinical trials.

No peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) devices have specific FDA approvals for pain or muscle rehabilitation; many clinical studies used implantable pulse generators approved for spinal cord stimulation, representing off-label device use in PNFS applications.

Some randomized trials and reviews concluded minimal or unclear clinical benefit for specific uses—for example, an 8-week strength training trial combined with electrical stimulation reported negligible improvement in very weak muscles—highlighting contexts where routine clinical benefit has not been demonstrated.

Health technology assessments (Hayes) and systematic reviews concluded that evidence for many FES and NMES indications is insufficient or of low quality to demonstrate consistent, durable improvements in functional recovery or quality of life, supporting cautious coverage approaches for indications lacking robust proof of long-term benefit.

Routine use of FES/NMES for some indications—such as certain poststroke phases where durable functional gains are not consistently demonstrated—may not be supported by the current evidence base. Reviews emphasize heterogeneity and limited follow-up as key limitations to broad endorsement.

Further investigation is needed to establish the clinical usefulness of some NMES procedures following stroke. Existing meta-analyses and clinical assessments find mixed results and methodological limitations, and they call for additional rigorous RCTs before clinical usefulness and routine coverage can be confirmed.

For COPD, systematic reviews and meta-analyses report low- to very-low–quality evidence and inconsistent findings. While NMES may improve some measures of quadriceps force and submaximal exercise performance when applied alone, current evidence does not support NMES as a replacement for pulmonary rehabilitation or as a standalone substitute for comprehensive rehabilitation programs.

Guideline conclusions that IFT lacks sufficient evidence of benefit for chronic low back pain and knee osteoarthritis (ACP and NICE) may be applied in coverage decisions to limit routine use of IFT for these indications, or to require that use occur only within research or special arrangements.

Hayes HTA concluded that evidence for PENS in chronic low back pain is of very low quality and insufficient to draw definitive conclusions; consequently, routine use of PENS as monotherapy or as an established adjunct is not supported by current evidence.

When only weak, limited, or minimal evidence exists for a specified indication (as described for several PNS devices and some PENFS indications), policy approaches may exclude routine coverage or classify the intervention as experimental until stronger, comparative evidence is available.

The current evidence is insufficient to recommend PNS as a standard adjunct for postoperative rehabilitation generally. Small sample sizes, short treatment durations, inconsistent outcome measures, and study heterogeneity limit reliability and generalizability of reported benefits.

Overall evaluations conclude that PEMF stimulation lacks sufficient evidence for routine use across many pain indications and fracture healing, and that restorative neurostimulation evidence is variable and not yet definitive. These modalities should be considered investigational for indications lacking strong comparative data.

Use of restorative neurostimulation or scrambler therapy outside of controlled study settings or for populations not represented in trials may be excluded from routine coverage. Hayes and other HTAs characterize the scrambler body of evidence as low or very low quality and recommend further large, rigorous trials before routine adoption.

Hayes reviews and ECRI assessments consistently concluded that the body of evidence for scrambler therapy in cancer- and noncancer-related chronic pain is generally low or very low quality, with small trials, short follow-up, and methodological limitations; these findings do not support routine coverage outside research contexts.

Conservative Therapy and Stepwise Requirements

inv-138: Trial of AFO and/or supervised physical therapy prior to FES is reasonable given comparative evidence.

Trial of AFO and/or supervised physical therapy prior to FES is reasonable given comparative evidence.

Conservative trial before FES: Prior to initiating FES for foot drop, document a trial of ankle-foot orthosis (AFO) and/or supervised physical therapy with objective gait assessments and lack of sufficient improvement despite that trial.

Systematic reviews comparing FES vs AFO support consideration of AFO/PT trial before FES

inv-140: Recommend prior conservative management before considering IFT/NMES.

Recommend prior conservative management before considering IFT/NMES.

Conservative therapy prior to IFT/NMES: For chronic low back pain and knee OA, recommend documented trial of guideline-based conservative therapies (eg, exercise, bracing, supervised PT) before considering interferential therapy or transcutaneous electrotherapies.

ACP and systematic reviews support conservative-first approach

Prior Authorization, Documentation, and Operational Guidance

Note

Prior Authorization / Authorization Triggers

Prior authorization: Not specified in this section. There are no explicit prior authorization requirements detailed here; local UnitedHealthcare prior authorization rules should be consulted when submitting device- or procedure-related requests.

Prior authorization — not specified in this part
No explicit authorization or denial triggers present in these excerpts

Denial Risk

Denial Risk Due to Insufficient or Low-Quality Evidence

Denial risk: Evidence insufficiency and low-quality studies may lead to denials for many electrotherapy and neuromodulation indications described. Several reviews and guideline bodies (Hayes, ECRI, NICE, ASCO, ACP) note low or very low quality, small sample sizes, inconsistent protocols, short follow-up, and heterogeneity — all of which increase the risk that coverage requests will be denied when durable functional benefit is expected.

Low-quality evidence may lead to denials

Device Examples and Regulatory / Coding Identifiers

Device examplesmixed

StimRouter Neuromodulation System	Implanted peripheral nerve stimulation system (example device)
SPRINT PNS System	Implanted peripheral nerve stimulation system (example device)
Freedom Peripheral Nerve Stimulator (formerly StimQ)	Implanted peripheral nerve stimulation system (example device)

FDA product codes and device identifiersmixed

GZI	Functional Electrical Stimulation device product code
IPF	Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation for Muscle Rehabilitation product code
LIH	Interferential Therapy device product code
ILX	Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Stimulation device product code
NHI	Percutaneous/Peripheral Nerve Stimulation product code
GZB	Percutaneous/Peripheral Nerve Stimulation product code
GZF	Percutaneous/Peripheral Nerve Stimulation product code
LGW	Peripheral Subcutaneous/Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation (no specific pain or muscle rehabilitation approval) product code
GZJ	Microcurrent / TENS / Scrambler Therapy device product code
QHH	Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Field Stimulation (IB-Stim) product code

1–10 of 14

1/2

Treatment Durations, Trial Lengths, and Typical Course Frequencies

FES training for CHF (Kadoglou et al.)

Program duration6-week FES training program as reported in Kadoglou et al. (randomized controlled trial)

Population exampleStable CHF participants (NYHA II–III) enrolled in the trial (n=120)

Follow-up notedParticipants followed up to 19 months for hospitalization and mortality outcomes

geko NMES device postoperative use

Session countUp to 20 sessions reported for geko NMES device use post–total hip replacement

Session durationMinimum 30 minutes per session reported in the study

Imaging and Procedural Documentation Requirements

Note

Definitions, Modalities, and Background

This section provides background definitions and an overview of neuromodulation and electrical stimulation modalities used in pain management and rehabilitation. It defines percutaneous techniques (e.g., PENS, PENFS), peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), peripheral nerve field/subcutaneous stimulation (PNFS), pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF), restorative neurostimulation (e.g., multifidus-targeted systems), transcutaneous approaches (TENS, IFT), scrambler therapy, translingual stimulation (PoNS/TLS), and functional/neuromuscular electrical stimulation (FES/NMES). These modality definitions frame the coverage and evidence considerations discussed throughout the document.

PENS definition

DefinitionPercutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (PENS): Minimally invasive pain treatment using acupuncture-like needles connected to an external power source, distinct from TENS and not permanently implanted

MechanismTheorized to modulate hypersensitivity of peripheral nerves and involve endogenous opioid-like substances

Clinical contextUsed as a conservative, minimally invasive option for various musculoskeletal pain conditions; evidence base is limited and heterogeneous

Noncovered or Experimental Interventions

The excerpt does not list explicit, policy-level exclusions. Where the evidence base is weak or inconsistent (as summarized by HTAs and guideline bodies), the document indicates that therapies may be considered experimental, investigational, or not routinely covered. In the absence of explicit exclusions in this excerpt, coverage determinations should follow the evidence summaries and guideline recommendations presented above, applying noncoverage where high-quality evidence and guideline support are lacking.

Regulatory Approvals, HTAs, and Reference Sources

Note

The references section of the excerpt lists bibliographic citations used to support the evidence summaries and does not itself provide utilization management, prior authorization, or coverage guidance. It is provided for informational citation of the source literature.

Policy Summary

PayerUnitedHealthcare

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

Policy CodePolicy N/A

Change TypeNo material clinical or coverage changes

Effective DateMay 1, 2026

Next Review DateN/A

Key ActionDocument prior conservative therapy and trial stimulation results when requesting authorization for implantable or temporary peripheral nerve stimulation.

SourceLink

On This Page

Congestive Heart Failure (CHF): Meta-analyses show FES of the legs improves peak VO2, 6MWT distance, and QOL versus control, though conventional exercise may provide greater benefit in some comparisons and study heterogeneity persists.

Wang et al. meta-analysis (14 RCTs) reported cardiopulmonary improvements

Postoperative musculoskeletal rehabilitation (joint replacement, ACL): NMES added to conventional rehabilitation can reduce pain and improve quadriceps strength and some functional outcomes after joint replacement and ACL reconstruction; earlier initiation often yields greater strength gains, though heterogeneity and small trials temper conclusions.

Sun et al., Li et al. meta-analyses show strength/function benefits

Cerebral palsy (children/adolescents): Multiple RCTs and reviews indicate NMES-assisted strengthening and gait interventions can improve muscle strength, gait biomechanics, and functional mobility in CP, but protocols and dosing vary and evidence quality is limited.

Pool et al., Greve scoping review report physiologic and gait benefits

Poststroke dysphagia: Meta-analyses of dozens of RCTs (e.g., 46 RCTs, n=3,346) report NMES plus swallowing therapy improved swallowing function and QOL versus swallowing therapy alone; heterogeneity and geographic concentration of studies limit generalizability and reporting of adverse events.

Wang et al. and systematic reviews note benefits with caveats

Poststroke motor recovery and adjunct therapies: Small trials of combination therapies (mirror therapy plus NMES, NMES with repetitive facilitative exercise, median nerve NMES with language therapy) show improvements in walking speed, motor scores, and aphasia measures, but overall evidence is heterogeneous and preliminary.

Ohnishi, Xie and other small RCTs report promising adjunctive effects

Safety and adverse events: No consistent major adverse events were reported across these trials; however, lack of systematic adverse event reporting is a common limitation.

Multiple reviews note underreporting of adverse events

Chronic low back pain: Transcutaneous electrotherapies (TENS, IFT, EMS) show mixed, largely short-term results; IFT may offer modest short-term pain/disability reductions in some trials but heterogeneity and bias limit firm conclusions.

Wolfe et al. meta-analysis and ACP/NICE guidance note limited evidence

Knee osteoarthritis: Network and systematic reviews report that IFT demonstrates modest effects in some analyses but lacks robust superiority over other PT interventions; overall clinical significance is uncertain.

Chen et al. network meta-analysis and Chen 2022a report modest/heterogeneous effects

NICE guidance and ACP guideline inform potential noncoverage or research-only use

RESTORE trial specified these severity thresholds

Supporting evidence: Randomized trial evidence demonstrating clinically meaningful improvement (eg, ≥50% pain reduction or ≥15-point ODI improvement) or high-quality longitudinal outcomes to support implantation decisions.examples provided in literature

RESTORE and Gilligan reported clinically meaningful composite responses

clinically meaningful change or analgesic reduction

Hayes and other reviews characterize overall evidence as low/very low quality

inv-141: Trial of recommended noninvasive therapies prior to considering electrotherapy is suggested by cited guidelines.

Trial of recommended noninvasive therapies prior to considering electrotherapy is suggested by cited guidelines.

Noninvasive-first approach: Follow guideline recommendations to select nonpharmacological interventions (eg, exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation) before initiating electrotherapy modalities for chronic pain conditions.

ACP guidance recommends initial nonpharmacological treatments

inv-142: Consider standard conservative therapies prior to PENS; when used, document concomitant rehabilitation protocol.

Consider standard conservative therapies prior to PENS; when used, document concomitant rehabilitation protocol.

PENS as adjunct after conservative care: PENS is generally studied as an adjunct to rehabilitation; document prior standard conservative therapies and the concurrent rehabilitation protocol (frequency, duration) when PENS is used.

Systematic reviews recommend PENS not as first-line and stress documentation of rehab protocols

inv-143: Documented failure of conservative therapies prior to PENFS/PNS is commonly present in the evidence base.

Documented failure of conservative therapies prior to PENFS/PNS is commonly present in the evidence base.

Prior conservative failure: Studies and registries frequently enrolled patients who had failed multiple pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic therapies; document prior therapy trials and inadequate response before PENFS or PNS.

Chogle registry and Ontario Health review note prior therapy failures (eg, failed ≥4 pharmacologic therapies)

inv-144: Refractory to ≥2 conservative treatments before considering implantable PNS

Refractory to ≥2 conservative treatments before considering implantable PNS

Implantable PNS candidate criteria: Consider implantable PNS only after documented failure of two or more conservative treatments (eg, medications, structured PT), consistent with ASIPP guidance.refractory to ≥2 conservative treatments

ASIPP guideline supports implantable PNS after ≥2 conservative therapy failures

inv-145: Document failure or inadequate response to conservative therapies prior to approval

Document failure or inadequate response to conservative therapies prior to approval

Conservative therapy documented: For PEMF and other adjunctive electrotherapies, require documentation of prior standard conservative therapies (PT, exercise, medications) and inadequate response before considering device therapy, given heterogeneous and modest trial results.

Systematic reviews recommend prior conservative therapy before PEMF due to inconsistent benefits

inv-146: Documented failure of conservative therapy including PT and medications

Documented failure of conservative therapy including PT and medications

Duration of prior therapy: Require documentation of >90 days of prior conservative medical management, including at least one course of physical therapy, before considering implantation of restorative neurostimulation devices.>90 days

RESTORE and Gilligan trials required >90 days of prior management

inv-148: documented failure of prior therapy

Documented failure of prior therapy (general)

General requirement: Across minimally invasive neuromodulation studies, documentation that standard therapies were attempted and found inadequate is commonly required; include details of therapies tried, duration, and objective outcomes.

Multiple device studies and registries enroll refractory patients

Evidence insufficiency may trigger denial

Insufficient evidence may trigger denial — particularly when long-term or comparative effectiveness is required

Note

Guideline-Imposed Restrictions and Research-Only Recommendations

NICE and other guideline actions: For some indications NICE recommends research-only use or special arrangements (clinical governance, consent, audit) rather than routine offering. This implies that requests for coverage outside formal research or special arrangements may not be supported.

Research or special arrangements suggested by NICE for select interventions (e.g., transcutaneous NMES for dysphagia)
NICE recommendations against routine offering for IFT, PENS, and some electrotherapy uses

Documentation Required

Operational Documentation and Device Use Parameters

Documentation expectations: Clinical submissions should include trial/study-like documentation elements reported in the literature — baseline and serial standardized symptom scores, duration and parameters of device use, prior conservative therapies, and objective functional measures. Where trials used specific device parameters, include those details in the request.

Required clinical documentation elements (examples from studies): baseline and follow-up pain scores (VAS/NRS), disability scores (ODI, WOMAC), HRQOL measures (EQ-5D), duration of symptoms, prior treatments and their durations, and trial stimulation outcomes where applicable
Studies report baseline and follow-up standardized symptom scores and serial outcome measurement
Device use parameters: session duration, frequency, total treatment period (e.g., WalkAide 40 min/day × 5 days/week × 8 weeks; ReActiv8 30 min twice daily; percutaneous PNS 6–12 hours/day for 60 days; geko NMES 30 min/session up to 20 sessions over 5 days)
Therapy sequencing described in trials: many studies used electrotherapy as adjunct to exercise/PT or after failure of conservative treatments; document conservative therapy attempts (PT, medications, AFO trial) and any device or temporary trial results

Step Therapy

Step Therapy and Pediatric Treatment Sequencing

Step therapy and pediatric considerations: This section does not specify step therapy requirements. Several pediatric PENFS studies enrolled children after failure of multiple pharmacologic therapies — document prior pediatric treatment failures when applicable.

No step therapy requirements described in these excerpts
Many pediatric PENFS studies included patients after failure of multiple pharmacologic therapies — document prior medication trials and outcomes

Note

References and Evidence Caveat

References and evidence base: This section includes bibliographic citations and summaries of systematic reviews, HTAs, RCTs, and device approvals; FDA approvals are informational only and not a sole basis for coverage determinations.

This section contains bibliographic citations and evidence summaries (Hayes, ECRI, NICE, RCTs, systematic reviews)
FDA approval information is informational only — not the sole basis for coverage

Study designSingle-center, open-label randomized trial with 60 participants

Home-based or supervised NMES rehabilitation programs

Common program durationsProgram durations vary; 4–12 weeks commonly reported for home-based or supervised NMES rehabilitation

Example durations6-week NMES programs reported in ACL and other postoperative studies; 12-week programs used in amputee rehabilitation trials

Delivery settingsPrograms delivered as home-based NMES or combined with conventional supervised physical therapy

Transcutaneous electrotherapies (IFT/TENS/EMS) — typical course parameters

Typical course parametersTrials commonly required a minimum of eight treatment sessions; many studied courses ranged from daily sessions for 1–2 weeks to multiple weekly sessions over several weeks

Modalities includedIFT, TENS, and EMS evaluated as stand-alone or mixed protocols in chronic low back pain trials

Outcome horizonMost effects reported as short term with limited data beyond 3 months

Ultrasound-guided femoral nerve PENS (ACL study)

Sessions in RCTTwo ultrasound-guided femoral nerve PENS sessions were used in the reported ACL reconstruction RCT

Adjunctive therapyPENS was combined with a 12-week standardized rehabilitation program in the trial

Stimulation parametersReported parameters included 2-Hz frequency and 240 μs pulse duration (30 × 0.40-mm needle) in the study

Varied treatment durations across studies

Typical PENFS regimensClinical studies report varied durations; examples include 4–6 week PENFS courses in pediatric and adult series

Temporary PNS durations notedTemporary percutaneous PNS treatments in studies ranged from short trials to multi-week courses prior to implant consideration

Heterogeneity remarkOverall treatment durations across studies are heterogeneous and often study-specific

Temporary percutaneous PNS trial duration prior to implant

Common trial duration before implantTemporary percutaneous PNS trial durations commonly reported as 60 days (8 weeks) prior to considering permanent implant

Usage patternSome studies instructed daily use for multiple hours per day during the trial (eg, 6–12 hours/day in certain medial branch PNS series)

Outcome timingPrimary responder assessments often occurred during weeks 5–8 of the trial period in randomized studies

PEMF therapy — trial durations

Trial course rangePEMF study courses varied widely; common trial courses lasted 2–12 weeks with multiple sessions per week depending on indication

Session parametersReported session durations ranged from ~10–30 minutes with frequencies and field strengths varying substantially across trials

Indication-specific notePEMF regimens and durations were often tailored to indication (eg, OA vs fracture), limiting generalizability of a single standard course

Scrambler therapy courses (typical trial: 10 sessions)

Typical trial lengthScrambler therapy trial courses commonly comprised 10 sessions in RCTs and pilot studies

Session durationIndividual sessions usually lasted 30–45 minutes each over approximately 2 weeks (eg, 10 working days)

Follow-up observationsSome studies reported short-term maintenance at 4 weeks to 3 months, with limited long-term durability data

Scrambler therapy — typical RCT protocol

Common RCT protocol10 sessions typical in randomized protocols, delivered over ~2 weeks (Monday–Friday for 2 weeks)

Session lengthSessions commonly 30–45 minutes each per protocol descriptions

Indication variabilityTrials included diverse neuropathic pain conditions, limiting uniform course recommendations

PoNS/TLS with PT — program durations

Long-course exampleTyler et al. used a 14-week PoNS program (2 in-clinic, 12 at home) with twice-daily sessions paired with PT

Short-course examplePtito et al. used a 5-week PoNS program (daily sessions) paired with targeted PT in their multicenter RCT

Delivery modelPoNS/TLS is delivered adjunctively with supervised physical therapy rather than as a stand-alone modality

Percutaneous electrical nerve field stimulation definition

DefinitionPercutaneous electrical nerve field stimulation: Targets central pain pathways (auricular branch of the vagus) using alternating low-voltage frequencies

Clinical usesInvestigated for conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome and functional abdominal pain in pediatric populations

Evidence remarkMechanism not fully established; evidence described as weak and limited in size and follow-up

PNS definition

DefinitionPeripheral Nerve Stimulation (PNS): Implanted or percutaneous electrodes placed near a peripheral nerve to deliver impulses that disrupt pain signal transmission

System examplesCommercial systems include StimRouter, SPRINT (temporary), Freedom, and Nalu microimplantable IPGs

Evidence summaryEvidence includes small RCTs and registries showing clinically meaningful responder rates in selected studies but overall certainty remains limited

Peripheral nerve field stimulation definition

DefinitionPeripheral Nerve Field Stimulation (PNFS): Subcutaneous electrode arrays implanted within subcutaneous tissue to stimulate a painful field when a single peripheral nerve target is not appropriate

Use caseUsed for localized back pain or as a SubQ add-on to SCS when back pain persists despite adequate leg pain relief from SCS

Evidence noteEvidence consists of small trials and case series; randomized trials are limited in size

PEMF definition

DefinitionPulsed Electromagnetic Field (PEMF) stimulation: Noninvasive therapy applying electromagnetic fields hypothesized to facilitate bone/cartilage repair and modulate inflammatory cell function

Typical regimensStudy regimens varied from 10 days to 12 weeks with session frequencies from 2–7 times/week and session durations of 10–30 minutes

Evidence summarySome RCTs and systematic reviews report short-term pain and function benefits in OA and non-specific LBP but heterogeneity limits definitive conclusions

Restorative neurostimulation definition

DefinitionRestorative neurostimulation: Implanted leads stimulate the lumbar multifidus to restore neuromuscular control and treat mechanical chronic low back pain (eg, ReActiv8)

IndicationIntended for CLBP associated with multifidus dysfunction after failure of conservative therapies; ReActiv8 has PMA approval with specific indications

Evidence noteRecent RCTs (RESTORE, Gilligan) report clinically meaningful improvements but open-label designs and potential conflicts of interest noted

Scrambler therapy definition

DefinitionScrambler therapy: Noninvasive transdermal therapy applying variable nonlinear waveforms via skin electrodes to present nonpain information to the painful dermatome

Typical deliveryDelivered in multiple consecutive sessions (commonly 10 sessions of 30–45 minutes over ~2 weeks in RCTs)

Evidence summaryEvidence mixed and often low-quality; some small RCTs show short-term pain reduction but long-term durability is uncertain

TENS definition

DefinitionTENS (Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation): Surface electrodes deliver current to activate peripheral nerves to inhibit pain transmission and/or stimulate endorphin release; distinct from NMES

Typical usesEvaluated across multiple MSK pain conditions and compared with other electrotherapies in clinical trials

Evidence remarkMeta-analyses in CLBP found no consistent superiority of TENS vs active or passive controls; effects often short term

Translingual stimulation definition

DefinitionTranslingual Stimulation (TLS/PoNS): Noninvasive stimulation delivered via a mouthpiece to the dorsal tongue to stimulate trigeminal and facial nerve inputs paired with targeted therapy to promote neuroplasticity

Delivery modelUsed adjunctively with structured physical therapy (twice-daily sessions in some protocols) rather than as stand-alone therapy

Regulatory statusPoNS received De Novo approval (Portable Neuromodulation Stimulator) for adjunctive treatment of gait deficit in MS (device labeling specifies supervised therapeutic exercise)

FES / NMES definition and context

DefinitionFunctional Electrical Stimulation (FES) / Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation (NMES): Electrical stimulation to elicit functional muscle contractions to improve strength, aerobic capacity, gait, and QOL; often combined with exercise

Assistive vs rehabilitativeFES can be used as assistive (immediate functional aid) or rehabilitative (to promote longer-term motor recovery) depending on protocol

Evidence summaryDemonstrated benefits across SCI, CP, stroke, MS, CHF, and postoperative rehab, but effect sizes, durability, and optimal parameters vary by condition

CCFES / Assistive vs Rehabilitative FES

CCFES conceptContralaterally controlled FES (CCFES): The unaffected limb controls stimulation of the affected limb to facilitate motor recovery; shown in some meta-analyses to improve certain motor outcomes vs cyclic NMES

Evidence summaryMeta-analyses and RCTs report improved Fugl-Meyer and other measures with CCFES but trials are few and heterogeneous

Typical protocolsExamples include 20-minute daily stimulation sessions, 5 days/week for 3 weeks or longer protocols up to 12 weeks in some trials

Interferential Therapy (IFT) definition and evidence

Interferential therapy (IFT)Medium-frequency transcutaneous electrical therapy evaluated for MSK pain; evidence is heterogeneous with some short-term pain and disability benefit in select trials but overall insufficient consistency for firm conclusions

Study requirementsTrials often required a minimum number of sessions (eg, at least 8 sessions in CLBP reviews) and varied protocols across studies

Guideline stanceNICE and ACP find insufficient evidence to support routine offering of IFT for some indications (eg, osteoarthritis, chronic primary pain)