Coverage Policies

Use the index below to search for coverage information on specific medical conditions.

Note: For Arkansas State or Public School employees, services subject to pre-authorization are managed by Active Health Management, as noted in their Summary Plan Description.

For coverage information on high tech imaging (MRI, CT, PET) and nuclear medicine, administered by Evicore, click here.

Medical Providers: Payment for care or services is based on eligibility, medical necessity and available benefits at time of service and is subject to all contractual exclusions and limitations, including pre-existing conditions if applicable.

Future eligibility cannot be guaranteed and should be rechecked at time of service. Verify benefits by signing into My Account or calling Customer Service at 800.235.7111 or 501.228.7111.

If not specified in a QualChoice coverage policy (Benefit Interpretation), QualChoice follows care guidelines published by MCG Health.

QualChoice reserves the right to alter, amend, change or supplement medical policies as needed. QualChoice reviews and authorizes services and substances. CPT and HCPCS codes are listed as a convenience and any absent, new or changed codes do not alter the intent of the policy.


Effective Date: 12/01/2011 Title: Magnetoenchalopgraphy (MEG)
Revision Date: 10/01/2015 Document: BI329:00
CPT Code(s): 95965-95967, S8035
Public Statement

Effective Date:

a)    This policy will apply to all services performed on or after the above revision date which will become the new effective date.

b)    For all services referred to in this policy that were performed before the revision date, contact customer service for the rules that would apply.

  1. Magnetoencephalography is a noninvasive functional imaging technique which records the weak magnetic forces associated with the brain’s electrical activity. 
  2. This sophisticated technique is sometimes helpful in localizing brain function in patients preparing to undergo brain surgery for intractable epilepsy.
  3. This technology is covered in patients who meet the medical policy criteria for intractable epilepsy.

Medical Statement
  1. Magnetic source imaging (MSI) or magnetoencephalography (MEG) are considered medically necessary for pre-surgical evaluation in persons with intractable focal epilepsy to identify and localize areas of epileptiform activity, when discordance or continuing questions arise from among other techniques designed to localize a focus.
  2. MSI or MEG is considered experimental and investigational when used as a stand-alone test or as the first order of test after clinical and routine electroencephalographic (EEG) diagnosis of epilepsy.


Codes Used In This BI:

95965 Magnetoencephalography (MEG), recording and analysis; for spontaneous brain magnetic activity (e.g., epileptic cerebral cortex localization)
95966 Magnetoencephalography (MEG), recording and analysis; for evoked magnetic fields, single modality (e.g., sensory, motor, language, or visual cortex localization)
95967 Magnetoencephalography (MEG), recording and analysis; for evoked magnetic fields, each additional modality (e.g., sensory, motor, language, or visual cortex localization) (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure)
S8035 Magnetic source imaging


1.    MSI or MEG is considered experimental and investigational for the following indications (not an all inclusive list):

·         Evaluation of Alzheimer`s disease

·         Evaluation of autism

·         Evaluation of brain tumors

·         Evaluation of cognitive and mental disorders

·         Evaluation of developmental dyslexia

·         Evaluation of multiple sclerosis

·         Evaluation of Parkinson`s disease

·         Evaluation of schizophrenia

·         Evaluation of stroke rehabilitation

·         Evaluation of traumatic brain injury

·         Fetal neurological assessment.


Magnetic source imaging or magnetoencephalography is a non-invasive functional imaging technique in which the weak magnetic forces associated with the electrical activity of the brain are monitored externally on the scalp, i.e. MSI differs from a standard electroencephalography (EEG) in that it records the magnetic fields instead of the electrical activity. The principal advantage of MSI is that while the measurement of electrical activities is affected by surrounding brain structures, the magnetic fields are not. Thus, when coupled to a MRI, MSI allows a high-resolution functional/anatomical image.

An assessment conducted by the BlueCross BlueShield Technology Evaluation Center (2003) concluded that there is insufficient evidence to render conclusions regarding the effect of MSI/MEG on health outcomes for either pre-surgical localization of seizure origin or pre-surgical functional mapping. An assessment of MEG from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care Medical Advisory Secretariat (2006) found that studies are generally of poor quality, and were graded of low or very-low quality of evidence. Specifically with regard to the use of MEG in epilepsy, the assessment stated that it is unclear whether MEG has similar accuracy in localizing seizure foci as intracranial EEG.

Pataraia, et al. (2005) studied the functional organization of the inter-ictal spike complex in 30 patients with mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE) using combined MEG/EEG recordings. Spikes could be recorded in 14 patients (47%) during the 2- to 3-h MEG/EEG recording session. The MEG and EEG spikes were subjected to separate dipole analyses; the MEG spike dipole localizations were superimposed on MRI scans. All spike dipoles could be localized to the temporal lobe with a clear preponderance in the medial region. Based on dipole orientations in MEG, patients could be classified into 2 groups: (i) patients with anterior medial vertical (AMV) dipoles, suggesting epileptic activity in the Medio basal temporal lobe, and (ii) patients with anterior medial horizontal (AMH) dipoles, indicating involvement of the temporal pole and the anterior parts of the lateral temporal lobe. Whereas patients with AMV dipoles had strictly unitemporal inter-ictal and ictal EEG changes during prolonged video-EEG monitoring, half of patients with AMH dipoles showed evidence of bitemporal affection on inter-ictal and ictal EEG. Nine patients underwent epilepsy surgery so far. While all 5 patients with AMV dipoles became completely seizure-free post-operatively (Class Ia), 2 out of 4 patients with AMH dipoles experienced persistent auras (Class Ib). However, this difference was not statistically significant. These researchers concluded that combined MEG/EEG dipole modeling can identify sub compartments of the temporal lobe involved in epileptic activity and may be helpful to differentiate between subtypes of mesial temporal lobe epilepsy non-invasively. The results need to be confirmed in well-designed studies with larger sample sizes.

Papanicolaou, et al. (2005) predicted the replacement of the more invasive procedure with MEG in the near future for temporal lobe epilepsy cases, subsequent to the optimization of the conditions under which pre-operative MEG is performed. Furthermore, in a review on management of intractable epilepsy in infancy and childhood, Wirrell, et al. (2006) stated that “MEG has proven to be useful in mapping sensory cortex and may also be useful to define eloquent cortex. The author stated that in a recent study (Stefan, et al., 2003), magnetic source imaging proved most useful in the localization of extra-temporal foci. The usefulness of MEG in pediatric epilepsy surgery planning remains to be determined”. Available evidence lacks systematic comparisons to other diagnostic techniques. Furthermore, there are no data specifically documenting how MSI/MEG might alter surgical management (i.e., changing the surgical approach or reducing the time needed for intra-operative mapping).

Knowlton, et al. (2006) stated that non-invasive brain imaging tests can potentially supplement or even replace the use of intra-cranial EEG (ICEEG) in pre-surgical epilepsy evaluation. These investigators prospectively examined the agreement between MSI and ICEEG localization in epilepsy surgery candidates. Patients completing video monitoring with scalp EEG who had intractable partial epilepsy based on ictal electro-clinico-anatomical features were screened. A total of 49 enrolled patients (mean age of 27 years; ranging from 1 to 61 years) completed MSI and ICEEG studies. Decisions about ICEEG and surgery were made at a consensus conference where MSI could only influence ICEEG coverage by indicating supplemental coverage to that already planned by an original hypothesis. The positive predictive value of MSI for seizure localization was 82 to 90 %, depending on whether computed against ICEEG alone or in combination with surgical outcome. The kappa score of agreement for MSI with ICEEG was 0.2744 (p < 0.01). These researchers found that MSI yields localizing information with a high positive predictive value in epilepsy surgery candidates who typically require ICEEG. This finding suggested that enough clinical validity exists for MSI to potentially replace ICEEG for seizure localization.  Moreover, the authors stated that future studies must ascertain if certain MSI results are more predictive of accurate epilepsy localization, and if so, what other criteria are sufficient to preclude the need for further confirmation by ICEEG. This type of weighting will have to be measured in the context of all other epilepsy localization test. Furthermore, how discordant results from multiple non-invasive tests should be handled in a single surgical decision-making score, either toward or away from surgical resection, will have to be determined from greater outcome evidence.

Sutherling, et al. (2008) reported on preliminary results of an ongoing, long-term clinical study in epilepsy, where MSI changed surgical decisions. The investigators determined whether MSI changed the surgical decision in a prospective, blinded, crossover-controlled, single-treatment, observational case series. Sixty-nine sequential patients diagnosed with partial epilepsy of suspected neocortical origin had video-EEG and imaging. All met criteria for intracranial EEG (ICEEG). At a surgical conference, a decision was made before and after presentation of MSI. Cases where MSI altered the decision were noted. The investigators found that MSI gave nonredundant information in 23 patients (33%). MSI added ICEEG electrodes in 9 (13%) and changed the surgical decision in another 14 (20%). Based on MSI, 16 patients (23%) were scheduled for different ICEEG coverage. Twenty-eight have gone to ICEEG, 29 to resection, and 14 to vagal nerve stimulation, including 17 where MSI changed the decision. Additional electrodes in 4 patients covered the correct: hemisphere in 3, lobe in 3 and sublobar ictal onset zone in 1. MSI avoided contralateral electrodes in 2, who both localized on ICEEG. MSI added information to ICEEG in 1. The investigators concluded that MSI provided nonredundant information in 33% of patients. In those who have undergone surgery to date, MSI added useful information that changed treatment in 6 (9%), without increasing complications. The investigators stated that MSI had benefited 21% who have gone to surgery.

In a cohort study of epilepsy surgery candidates not sufficiently localized with noninvasive studies, Knowlton, et al. (2008) evaluated the predictive and prognostic value of MSI, PET, and ictal SPECT as compared with intracranial electroencephalography (ICEEG) localization in epilepsy surgery. Of 160 patients enrolled over 4 years, 77 completed ICEEG seizure monitoring. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values relative to ICEEG were computed for each modality. Seizures were not captured in five patients. Of the 72 diagnostic ICEEG studies, seizure localization results were 74% localized, 10% multifocal, and 17% nonlocalized. Sixty-one percent were localized to neocortical regions. Depending on patient subgroup pairs, sensitivity ranged from 58 to 64% (MSI), 22 to 40% (PET), and 39 to 48% (SPECT); specificity ranges were 79 to 88% (MSI), 53 to 63% (PET), and 44 to 50% (SPECT). Gains in diagnostic yield were seen only with the combination of MSI and PET or MSI and ictal SPECT. Localization concordance with ICEEG was greatest with MSI, but a significant difference was demonstrated only between MSI and PET. The investigators found that conclusively positive MSI has a high predictive value for seizures localized with ICEEG, and that diagnostic gain may be achieved with addition of either PET or ictal SPECT to MSI. The investigators noted that diagnostic values for imaging tests are lower than "true values" because of the limitations of ICEEG as a gold standard.

In a separate paper, Knowlton, et al. (2008) examined the outcomes of cohort subjects with epilepsy who subsequently underwent surgical resection. Of 160 patients enrolled, 62 completed ICEEG and subsequent surgical resection. Sixty-one percent resulted in an Engel I seizure-free outcome at a minimum of one-year follow-up (mean = 3.4 years). Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were computed for each modality. Multi-variate logistical regression was used to identify prediction of surgical outcome by imaging test. The investigators reported that MSI sensitivity for a conclusively localized study was 55% with a positive predictive value of 78%. Eliminating non-diagnostic MSI cases (no spikes captured during recording) yielded a corrected negative predictive value of 64%. With available comparison subgroups FDG-PET and ictal SPECT values were similar to MSI. The odds ratio (adjusted for epilepsy and MRI classification) for MSI prediction of seizure-free outcome was 4.4 (p = 0.01). In cases with both PET and MSI, the adjusted odds ratio for PET was 7.1 (p <0.01) and for MSI was 6.4 (p = 0.01). In the cases with all three tests (n = 27), ictal SPECT had the highest OR of 9.1 (p = 0.05).  The investigators concluded that MSI, FDG-PET, and ictal SPECT each have clinical value in predicting seizure-free surgical outcome in epilepsy surgery candidates who typically require ICEEG.

Rampp and Stefan (2007) stated that while MEG systems are still expensive and complex, the technique`s characteristics offer promising possibilities for the investigation of epilepsy patients (e.g., for focus localization and pre-surgical functional mapping).

Lam, et al. (2008) conducted a systematic evidence review of evidence of the effectiveness of MEGI in the presurgical evaluation of localization-related epilepsies. The investigators identified studies correlating surgical outcome (seizure freedom) with MEG source localization and resection area. The investigators found these studies of MEG reported wide ranging sensitivities (range: 0.20-1.0), specificities (0.06-1.00), positive likelihood ratios (0.67-2.0), and negative likelihood ratios (0.40-2.13). Based upon the results of their systematic review of the literature, the investigators concluded that "there is insufficient evidence in the current literature to support the relationship between the use of MEG in surgical planning and seizure-free outcome after epilepsy surgery." The investigators stated that additional studies are needed.

In a review on interictal electromagnetic source imaging in focal epilepsy, Leijten and Huiskamp (2008) noted that whether MEG is superior to EEG is still unresolved, because fair comparisons are lacking. Clinical studies have not yet adopted all technical possibilities. Localization accuracy seems high, but studies lack uniformity regarding methods, goals and outcome parameters. Therefore, the final place of electromagnetic source imaging in the pre-surgical work-up is still to be determined. The diagnostic potential is probably highest in extra-temporal epilepsies, and lowest in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. The authors concluded that electromagnetic source imaging has evolved technically and can provide valuable localization information in the pre-surgical evaluation of patients with epilepsy. However, standardization of the technique is required before further clinical studies can better establish its role in pre-surgical evaluation of focal epilepsy.

A BlueCross BlueShield Association`s technology assessment on MEG and MSI for the purpose of pre-surgical localization of epileptic lesions (2009) that "[t]he argument that MEG improves the diagnostic yield of IC-EEG is often made, but it is difficult to identify studies that can support this argument. Studies that compare IC-EEG to MEG do not inform this particular question. On the other hand, given the gravity of this particular situation, there are some possible arguments to be made on behalf of MEG. Given that current decision making regarding who should receive surgery and what type of surgery is done with some uncertainty and lack of a true reference standard, an additional piece of information that is known to correlate with seizure focus could be arguably of some value in making difficult decisions. The diagnostic test is easy to perform and noninvasive. Also, IC-EEG and surgery are extremely invasive procedures that do not always provide diagnostic information. Information from MEG might influence a patient’s decision to undergo the risks of further testing or surgery if the outcome can be slightly better estimated. However, given that one possible outcome of use of MEG may result in avoidance of tests and procedures that may benefit the patient, it is not possible to rule out harm from use of the test. The net effect of the use of MEG on patient outcomes for this indication remains to be determined".

MEG cannot replace, but may guide the placement of intracranial EEG and, in some patients, avoid an unnecessary intracranial EEG (AAN, 2009). MEG is not the first order of test after clinical and routine EEG diagnosis of epilepsy. It is one of several advanced pre-surgical investigative technologies. The need for MEG is much lower than surface EEG and anatomical imaging studies (AAN, 2009). MEG is not a stand-alone test. To realize its optimum clinical potential a comprehensive team evaluation, such as that available in comprehensive epilepsy centers, is necessary. The team usually comprises a neurologist with expertise in epilepsy, a neurosurgeon, MEG-physicists, psychologists, nurses and staff experienced in treatment of seizure disorders.

Although the literature contains some information regarding the clinical use of MSI in the pre-surgical mapping of eloquent cortex in patients with intra-cranial tumors or arterio-venous malformations, there is insufficient scientific evidence regarding its effectiveness for this indication. Critical outcomes are lacking, such as comparison of MSI with intra-operative methods and whether the use of MSI would change the management of patients such that clinical outcomes are improved.

Language and memory functions may reside in both or one hemisphere in patients with epilepsy. Determination of laterality is important to preserve as much language and memory functions as feasible during resective surgery. The intracarotid amobarbital test (Wada test) has long been used for language and memory localization. It has both merits and shortcomings when compared with newer tests. It is invasive, uncomfortable and carries certain morbidity. Several alternatives such as neuropsychological testing, functional MRI (fMRI), MEG, behavioral testing and SPECT-PET are available. Each has certain advantages and disadvantages.

There is limited evidence for the use of MEG as a substitute or supplement to the Wada test to identify the eloquent cortex for removal of brain tumors or arterio-venous malformations. Pelletier, et al. (2007) compared all the Wada alternatives in a comprehensive review. MEG, while requiring patient cooperation, had the advantage of being a non-invasive direct measure with excellent temporal resolution. Pelletier, et al. (2007) reported that the high concordance between the findings of the Wada test and neuroimaging techniques, especially fMRI, MEG, functional transcranial Doppler and possibly near infrared spectroscopy, is encouraging and holds promise that the Wada procedure will be eventually replaced by these non-invasive techniques. Pelletier, et al. (2007) concluded, however, that these methods still need to be refined, and certain incongruities between the Wada procedure and these techniques have to be addressed. For instance, fMRI provides little information regarding right hemisphere participation in language processing in patients with bilateral speech representation. MEG has the disadvantage that it is limited to the evaluation of receptive language. Furthermore, to obtain conclusive and reliable activation patterns, both fMRI and MEG require that the patient remain motionless in the scanner and comply with the test instructions. This restricts the application of these imaging techniques in young children and special populations. Pelletier, et al. (2007) stated that these neuroimaging techniques vary with regard to their spatial and temporal resolution. fMRI has good spatial resolution and relatively poor temporal resolution. The reverse is true for MEG. Furthermore, different techniques target different functions. The authors suggested that a multimodal approach, combining several techniques, is therefore the safest way to provide the surgeon with reliable information.

There is additional evidence for the use of MEG to localize the eloquent cortex in resections for non-epilepsy lesions. Grover, et al. (2007) reported on a retrospective study where visual evoked cortical magnetic field (VEF) waveforms were recorded from both hemifields in 21 patients with temporo-parieto-occipital mass lesions to identify preserved visual pathways. Fifteen patients had visual symptoms pre-operatively. Magnetoencephalography VEF responses were detected, using single equivalent current dipole, in 17 of 21 patients studied. Displaced or abnormal responses were seen in 15 patients with disruption of pathway in one patient. Three of 21 patients had alterations in the surgical approach or the planned resection based on the MEG findings. The investigators concluded that the surgical outcome for these three patients suggests that the MEG study may have played a useful role in presurgical planning.

Korjenova, et al. (2006) prospectively evaluated MEG and functional MRI (fMRI) imaging, as compared with intraoperative cortical mapping, to localize the central sulcus. Fifteen patients (six men, nine women; age range, 25-58 years) with a lesion near the primary sensorimotor cortex (13 gliomas, one cavernous hemangioma, and one meningioma) were examined. MEG and fMRI localizations were compared with intraoperative cortical mappings. MEG depicted the central sulcus correctly in all 15 patients, as verified at intraoperative mapping. The fMRI localization results agreed with the intraoperative mappings in 11 patients. The investigators concluded that, although both MEG and fMRI can provide useful information for neurosurgical planning, in the present study, MEG proved to be superior for locating the central sulcus.

There is also insufficient evidence to support the use of MSI/MEG for other indications including the diagnosis and treatment of various neurological conditions/diseases such as Alzheimer`s disease, autism, cognitive and mental disorders, developmental dyslexia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson`s disease, schizophrenia, stroke rehabilitation, and traumatic brain injury. Currently, there are reliable data from well designed clinical studies that report the test performance (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values) and clinical utility of MSI/MEG for these indications.

Haddad and colleagues (2011) stated that the fetal brain remains inaccessible to neurophysiological studies. Magnetoencephalography is being assessed to fill this gap. These researchers performed 40 fetal MEG (fMEG) recordings with gestational ages (GA) ranging from 30 to 37weeks. The data from each recording were divided into 15 second epochs, which in turn were classified as continuous (CO), discontinuous (DC), or artifact. The fetal behavioral state, quiet or active sleep, was determined using previously defined criteria based on fetal movements and heart rate variability. These investigators studied the correlation between the fetal state, the GA and the percentage of CO and DC epochs. They also analyzed the spectral edge frequency (SEF) and studied its relation with state and GA. They found that the odds of a DC epoch decreased by 6 % per week as the GA increased (p = 0.0036). This decrease was mainly generated by changes during quiet sleep, which showed 52 % DC epochs before a 35-week GA versus 38 % after 35 weeks (p = 0.0006). Active sleep did not show a significant change in DC epochs with GA. When both states were compared for MEG patterns within each GA group (before and after 35 weeks), the early group was found to have more DC epochs in quiet sleep (54 %) compared to active sleep (42 %) (p = 0.036). No significant difference in DC epochs between the two states was noted in the late GA group. Analysis of SEF showed a significant difference (p = 0.0014) before and after a 35-week GA, with higher SEF noted at late GA. However, when both quiet and active sleep states were compared within each GA group, the SEF did not show a significant difference. The authors concluded that fMEG shows reproducible variations in gross features and frequency content, depending on GA and behavioral state. They stated that fetal MEG is a promising tool to investigate fetal brain physiology and maturation

  1. Blumenfeld LD, Clementz BA. Response to the first stimulus determines reduced auditory evoked response suppression in schizophrenia: Single trials analysis using MEG. Clin Neurophysiol. 2001; 112(9):1650-1659.
  2. Zappasodi F, Tecchio F, Pizzella V, et al. Detection of fetal auditory evoked responses by means of magnetoencephalography. Brain Res. 2001; 917(2):167-173.
  3. Rosenow F, Luders H. Presurgical evaluation of epilepsy. Brain. 2001; 124(Pt 9):1683-1700.
  4. Filipek PA, Accardo PJ, Ashwal S, et al. American Academy of Neurology. Practice parameter: Screening and diagnosis of autism. Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the Child Neurology Society. Neurology. 2000; 55(4):468-479.
  5. Kuzniecky RI, Knowlton RC. Neuroimaging of epilepsy. Semin Neurol. 2002; 22(3):279-288.
  6. Feichtinger M, Holl A, Korner E, Schrottner O, et al. Future aspects of the presurgical evaluation in epilepsy. Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2002; 84:17-26.
  7. Barkley GL. Controversies in neurophysiology. MEG is superior to EEG in localization of interictal epileptiform activity: Pro. Clin Neurophysiol. 2004; 115(5):1001-1009.
  8. Baumgartner C. Controversies in clinical neurophysiology. MEG is superior to EEG in the localization of interictal epileptiform activity: Con. Clin Neurophysiol. 2004; 115(5):1010-1020.
  9. Knowlton RC, Shih J. Magnetoencephalography in epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2004;45 Suppl 4:61-71.
  10. Parra J, Kalitzin SN, da Silva FH. Magnetoencephalography: An investigational tool or a routine clinical technique? Epilepsy Behav. 2004;5(3):277-285.
  11. Billingsley-Marshall RL, Simos PG, Papanicolaou AC. Reliability and validity of functional neuroimaging techniques for identifying language-critical areas in children and adults. Dev Neuropsychol. 2004;26(2):541-563.
  12. Stefan H, Hummel C, Scheler G, et al. Magnetic brain source imaging of focal epileptic activity: A synopsis of 455 cases. Brain. 2003;126(Pt 11):2396-2405.
  13. Lopes da Silva FH. What is magnetoencephalography and why it is relevant to neurosurgery? Adv Tech Stand Neurosurg. 2005;30:51-67.
  14. Pataraia E, Lindinger G, Deecke L, et al. Combined MEG/EEG analysis of the interictal spike complex in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. Neuroimage. 2005;24(3):607-614.
  15. Papanicolaou AC, Pataraia E, Billingsley-Marshall R, et al. Toward the substitution of invasive electroencephalography in epilepsy surgery. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2005;22(4):231-237.
  16. Wirrell E, Whiting S, Farrell K. Management of intractable epilepsy in infancy and childhood. Adv Neurol. 2006;97:463-491.
  17. Knowlton RC, Elgavish R, Howell J, et al. Magnetic source imaging versus intracranial electroencephalogram in epilepsy surgery: A prospective study. Ann Neurol. 2006;59(5):835-842.
  18. Criado JR, Amo C, Quint P, et al. Using magnetoencephalography to study patterns of brain magnetic activity in Alzheimer`s disease. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2006;21(6):416-423.
  19. Ontario Ministry of Health, Medical Advisory Secretariat (MAS). Functional brain imaging. Health Technology Policy Assessment. Toronto, ON: MAS; December 2006. Available at:
    rev_fbi_012507.pdf. Accessed April 3, 2007.
  20. Rampp S, Stefan H. Magnetoencephalography in presurgical epilepsy diagnosis. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2007;4(3):335-347.
  21. Poza J, Hornero R, Abásolo D, et al. Evaluation of spectral ratio measures from spontaneous MEG recordings in patients with Alzheimer`s disease. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2008;90(2):137-147.
  22. Lau M, Yam D, Burneo JG. A systematic review on MEG and its use in the presurgical evaluation of localization-related epilepsy. Epilepsy Res. 2008;79(2-3):97-104.
  23. Leijten FS, Huiskamp G. Interictal electromagnetic source imaging in focal epilepsy: Practices, results and recommendations. Curr Opin Neurol. 2008;21(4):437-445.
  24. Korvenoja A, Kirveskari E, Aronen HJ, et al. Sensorimotor cortex localization: Comparison of magnetoencephalography, functional MR imaging, and intraoperative cortical mapping. Radiology. 2006;241(1):213-222.
  25. Grover KM, Bowyer SM, Rock J, et al. Retrospective review of MEG visual evoked hemifield responses prior to resection of temporo-parieto-occipital lesions. J Neurooncol. 2006;77(2):161-166.
  26. Pelletier I, Sauerwein HC, Lepore F, et al. Non-invasive alternatives to the Wada test in the presurgical evaluation of language and memory functions in epilepsy patients. Epileptic Disord. 2007;9(2):111-126.
  27. Sutherling WW, Mamelak AN, Thyerlei D, et al. Influence of magnetic source imaging for planning intracranial EEG in epilepsy. Neurology. 2008;71(13):990-996.
  28. Knowlton RC, Elgavish RA, Limdi N, et al. Functional imaging: I. Relative predictive value of intracranial electroencephalography. Ann Neurol. 2008;64(1):25-34.
  29. Knowlton RC, Elgavish RA, Bartolucci A, et al. Functional imaging: II. Prediction of epilepsy surgery outcome. Ann Neurol. 2008;64(1):35-41.
  30. Knowlton RC. Can magnetoencephalography aid epilepsy surgery? Epilepsy Curr. 2008;8(1):1-5.
  31. American Academy of Neurology Professional Association (AANPA). Magnetoencephalography (MEG) Policy. Recommended by the AANPA Medical Economics and Management Committee. Approved by the AANPA Board of Directors on May 8, 2009. St. Paul, MN: AANPA; 2009.
  32. Bagic A, Funke ME, Ebersole J; ACMEGS Position Statement Committee. American Clinical MEG Society (ACMEGS) position statement: The value of magnetoencephalography (MEG)/magnetic source imaging (MSI) in noninvasive presurgical evaluation of patients with medically intractable localization-related epilepsy. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2009;26(4):290-293.
  33. Cimon K, Spry C. Magnetoencephalography (MEG) for seizure disorders in children: Clinical effectiveness. Health Technology Inquiry Service (HTIS). Ottawa, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); September 2, 2009.
  34. Clark M, Spry C. Magnetoencephalography for neurocognitive disorders: Clinical effectiveness. Health Technology Inquiry Service (HTIS). Ottawa, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); September 2, 2009.
  35. Funke M, Constantino T, Van Orman C, Rodin E. Magnetoencephalography and magnetic source imaging in epilepsy. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2009;40(4):271-280.
  36. Lowery CL, Govindan RB, Preissl H, et al. Fetal neurological assessment using noninvasive magnetoencephalography. Clin Perinatol. 2009;36(3):701-709.
  37. Stam CJ. Use of magnetoencephalography (MEG) to study functional brain networks in neurodegenerative disorders. J Neurol Sci. 2010;289(1-2):128-134.
  38. Siekmeier PJ, Stufflebeam SM. Patterns of spontaneous magnetoencephalographic activity in patients with schizophrenia. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2010;27(3):179-190.
  39. Haddad N, Govindan RB, Vairavan S, et al. Correlation between fetal brain activity patterns and behavioral states: An exploratory fetal magnetoencephalography study. Exp Neurol. 2011 Jan 13. [Epub ahead of print]

Application to Products
This policy applies to all health plans administered by QualChoice, both those insured by QualChoice and those that are self-funded by the sponsoring employer, unless there is indication in this policy otherwise or a stated exclusion in your medical plan booklet. Consult the individual plan sponsor Summary Plan Description (SPD) for self-insured plans or the specific Evidence of Coverage (EOC) for those plans insured by QualChoice. In the event of a discrepancy between this policy and a self-insured customer’s SPD or the specific QualChoice EOC, the SPD or EOC, as applicable, will prevail. State and federal mandates will be followed as they apply.
Changes: QualChoice reserves the right to alter, amend, change or supplement benefit interpretations as needed.
This policy has recently been updated. Please use the index above or enter policy title in search bar for the latest version.