Clinical UM Guideline

This document addresses non-operative uses of the following evoked potential (EP) studies:

• Visual evoked potentials (VEPs);
• Somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs or SEPs);
• Motor evoked potentials (MEPs).

Evoked potentials (EPs) or evoked responses are electrical waves created in the central nervous system by peripheral stimulation of a sensory organ. EPs are used to identify abnormal central nervous system function that may not be detected clinically.

Note: This document does not address intra-operative uses for VEPs, SSEPs, or MEPs. Please see the following related documents for additional information:

• CG-MED-94 Vestibular Function Testing (for vestibular evoked potential testing);
• CG-SURG-104 Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring.

Note: For a high-level overview of this document, please see “Summary for Members and Families” below.

 I,  Visual Evoked Potentials:

Medically Necessary:

Visual evoked potentials are considered medically necessary for the diagnosis, evaluation, or monitoring of any of the following conditions:

1. Multiple sclerosis or neuromyelitis optica, or other demyelinating disorders of the optic nerve; or
2. Suspected disorder of the optic nerve, optic chiasm or optic radiations not explained by magnetic resonance imaging, computerized tomography, infectious diseases or metabolic disorders.

Not Medically Necessary:

Visual evoked potentials are considered not medically necessary for all other uses, including but not limited to glaucoma testing and routine screening of infants.

II.  Somatosensory Evoked Potentials:

Medically Necessary:

Somatosensory evoked potentials are considered medically necessary when the results will be used to guide clinical management for the following conditions:

1. Acute (within 72 hours of onset) anoxic encephalopathy; or
2. Coma following traumatic, hypoxic-ischemic and other diffuse brain injuries; or
3. Central nervous system deficit identified on clinical exam when not explained by appropriate imaging studies; or
4. Demyelinating disease (such as multiple sclerosis) when diagnosis is uncertain and clinical suspicion exists based on neurologic symptoms or cerebrospinal fluid evaluation; or
5. Myelopathy, unexplained; or
6. Spinocerebral degeneration (such as Friedreich’s ataxia); or
7. Spinal cord lesions secondary to trauma when the need for surgical intervention is uncertain; or
8. Suspected brain death.

Not Medically Necessary:

Somatosensory evoked potentials are considered not medically necessary for all other uses.

III.  Motor Evoked Potentials:

Medically Necessary:

Motor evoked potentials are considered medically necessary for evaluation of suspected hysterical or factitious paralysis.

Not Medically Necessary:

Motor evoked potentials are considered not medically necessary in the non-operative setting when the above criteria are not met.

This document describes clinical studies and expert recommendations, and explains when visual, somatosensory and motor evoked potentials are appropriate. These tests measure how well signals travel between the brain and the eyes, skin, or muscles to help check nerve and brain function. The following summary does not replace the medical necessity criteria or other information in this document. The summary may not contain all of the relevant criteria or information. This summary is not medical advice. Please check with your healthcare provider for any advice about your health.

Key Information

Evoked potentials (EPs) are tests that record how the nervous system responds to certain types of stimulation. They are used to check how well different nerve pathways are working. Common types of EPs include: visual evoked potentials (VEPs), somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs), and motor evoked potentials (MEPs). VEPs help detect problems in the visual system, especially in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). SSEPs check the pathways that carry touch and position signals to the brain and are often used in people who are unconscious after events like cardiac arrest. MEPs look at pathways that control movement and may help identify certain movement problems. Each of these tests has different uses and can provide important information, but in some cases, more research is needed to know how well they work or how best to use them.

What the Studies Show

VEPs are used most often in people with MS. In MS, the signal in the optic nerve between the eye and brain slows down, and the strength of the response can weaken over time. VEPs may help identify people who are more likely to develop MS. VEPs may also help diagnose other problems with the optic nerve when other tests do not give clear answers. Some research has looked at using VEPs in newborns with brain injury from low oxygen, but more high-quality studies are needed before regular use is recommended. Small studies suggest VEPs might detect vision loss from glaucoma, but these studies do not show that VEPs are better than standard vision tests.

SSEPs are most helpful for people who are unconscious after events like cardiac arrest. In many studies, if both sides of the brain do not show a certain signal (called N20), this is linked to the likelihood of a poor recovery. Experts support using SSEPs in this setting. SSEPs might also help predict MS risk. Other uses include evaluating brain damage, unexplained spinal cord problems, and confirming brain death.

MEPs test the pathways that send movement signals. These are sometimes used to help diagnose the cause of paralysis. MEPs have been studied in people with hereditary spastic paraplegia (HSP), a disease that affects movement. Many studies show that people with HSP have slow or missing signals, but results vary. Better studies are needed to know if MEPs can help predict how that disease will progress.

When are Evoked Potentials Clinically Appropriate?

Evoked potentials may be appropriate in these situations:

• VEPs may be used to:
  • Help confirm or monitor multiple sclerosis (MS)
  • Evaluate possible optic nerve problems when imaging tests or other causes do not explain the symptoms
• SSEPs may be used to:
  • Help predict recovery in people who are comatose after cardiac arrest
  • Identify possible risk for MS
  • Evaluate:
    • Acute brain injury from lack of oxygen
    • Neurologic problems not seen on imaging
    • Demyelinating diseases (diseases that damage the protective covering of nerves)
    • Unexplained spinal cord problems
    • Spinal injuries when it is unclear if surgery is needed
    • Suspected brain death
• MEPs may be used to:
  • Help tell the difference between real and mental causes of paralysis when nerves and muscles are intact

When is this not Clinically Appropriate?

Evoked potentials are not considered appropriate for routine vision screening in children under 3 years old. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force states there is not enough evidence to know if the benefits outweigh the harms. Better studies are needed to know if VEPs improve care for newborns with brain injury or for people with glaucoma.

(Return to Description)

The following codes for treatments and procedures applicable to this guideline are included below for informational purposes. Inclusion or exclusion of a procedure, diagnosis or device code(s) does not constitute or imply member coverage or provider reimbursement policy. Please refer to the member's contract benefits in effect at the time of service to determine coverage or non-coverage of these services as it applies to an individual member.

Visual evoked potentials, non-operative
When services may be Medically Necessary when criteria are met:

When services are Not Medically Necessary:
For the procedure codes listed above when criteria are not met, for all other diagnoses not listed, or for situations designated in the Clinical Indications section as not medically necessary.

When services are also Not Medically Necessary:
For the following procedure codes; or when the code describes a procedure designated in the Clinical Indications section as not medically necessary.

Somatosensory evoked potentials, non-operative
When services may be Medically Necessary when criteria are met:

When services are Not Medically Necessary:
For the procedure codes listed above when criteria are not met.

Motor evoked potentials, non-operative
When services may be Medically Necessary when criteria are met:

When services are Not Medically Necessary:
For the procedure codes listed above when criteria are not met.

Summary

Evoked Potentials (EPs) measure the nervous system’s electrical responses to sensory or motor stimulation and help assess the functional integrity of neural pathways. Commonly used EPs in clinical practice are visual evoked potentials (VEPs), somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs), and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) which are used more selectively.

VEPs evaluate signal transmission from the retina to the visual cortex. They are most commonly used in diagnosing and monitoring multiple sclerosis (MS), where demyelination slows signal conduction and reduces wave amplitude over time. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) indicates that VEPs are probably useful to identify individuals at increased risk for clinically definite MS. VEPs may also help evaluate other optic nerve disorders when imaging and other tests are inconclusive. Evidence suggests VEPs may have prognostic value in neonates with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, but more robust studies are needed before they are considered appropriate for routine use. While VEPs show potential for detecting glaucomatous visual field loss, they are not superior to standard visual field testing.

SSEPs assess sensory pathway function and can identify dysfunction within the somatosensory system. They are especially valuable in predicting neurological outcomes after cardiac arrest or, where the bilateral absence of N20 responses is strongly associated with poor prognosis. The AAN supports their use for outcome prediction in comatose patients and considers them possibly useful for identifying MS risk. SSEPs are also used in conditions such as anoxic encephalopathy, unexplained myelopathy, demyelinating diseases, spinal cord trauma, and suspected brain death.

MEPs evaluate motor pathways in the spinal cord and are elicited by brain stimulation. They may help differentiate psychogenic paralysis from true neurological injury when peripheral nerves and muscles are intact. MEPs have also been studied as a potential biomarker for HSP, with many studies showing delayed or absent motor conduction in affected individuals. However, findings are inconsistent, and further prospective research is needed to determine their prognostic value.

VEPs, SSEPs and MEPs have been in use for decades and are considered standard of care for the diagnosis, evaluation and monitoring of individuals with select conditions. The American Clinical Neurophysiology Society (ACNS) and AAN have published guidelines to provide guidance on the use of evoked potential testing (ACNS, 2006; Gronseth, 2000; Wijdicks, 2006).

Discussion

Evoked Potentials are recordings of the nervous system's electrical response to the stimulation of specific sensory pathways. These recordings have the ability to provide information relative to the functional integrity of pathways within the nervous system. Only a few evoked potentials are used on a routine basis and those most frequently encountered include VEPs and SSEPs.

Visual Evoked Potentials (VEPs)

VEPs track signals from the retina to the visual cortex and determine how a visual system reacts to light. A common indication for VEPs is to help confirm the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS), or to evaluate and monitor MS. In general, myelin plaques that occur in MS slow the speed of VEP wave peaks. Over time, VEPs in individuals with MS become progressively slower, eventually attenuating in amplitude as demyelination increases (Creel, 2012). The AAN (Gronseth, 2000) recommends VEPs as probably useful to identify those at increased risk for clinically definite MS.

VEPs have also been used for other conditions including neuromyelitis optica (NMO) or other demyelinating disorders of the optic nerves, or for a suspected disorder of the optic nerve, optic chiasm, or optic radiations not explained by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computerized tomography (CT), infectious diseases, or metabolic disorders.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF, 2017) has not recommended vision screening for infants and young children. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of vision screening for children less than 3 years of age.

van Laerhoven and colleagues (2013) published a systematic literature review to investigate the prognostic value of clinical tests used for evaluation of long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes of neonates with perinatal asphyxia and hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE). A total of 29 studies were included in the review describing 13 prognostic tests performed 1631 times in 1306 term neonates. Considerable heterogeneity was noted in test performance, cut-off values, and outcome measures. The VEP was found to have relatively high diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity 0.90 [0.74-0.97]; specificity 0.92 [0.68-0.98]). This review reported on diagnostic accuracy of VEP; well-designed prospective studies examining clinical utility are needed before standardized clinical use is advocated.

Several small studies (Horn, 2012; Pillai, 2013) have investigated the use of VEP technology to differentiate between normal healthy eyes and eyes with early to advanced visual field loss resulting from glaucoma. The authors indicated that VEP signals may discriminate between normal eyes and glaucomatous eyes. However, larger studies are needed to confirm these findings. Additionally, VEP has not been shown to be as good as or superior to standard visual field testing in managing clinical outcomes for persons with glaucoma.

Somatosensory Evoked Potentials (SSEPs)

SSEPs are electrical waves that are generated by the response of sensory neurons to stimulation. An abnormal SSEP finding demonstrates that there is dysfunction within the somatosensory pathways.

SSEP studies may be useful for helping to assess the extent of injury and predict outcomes in persons with traumatic, hypoxic-ischemic and other diffuse brain injuries, including those who are comatose. A 2020 systematic review by Sandroni and colleagues identified 94 studies evaluating factors associated with a poor neurological outcome in comatose individuals following cardiac arrest. Among other factors identified in the review, the bilateral absence of N20 waves of short latency SSEP within 7 days of the return of spontaneous circulation, examined in 18 studies, was associated with a poor neurological outcome in most of the 18 studies.

Wijdicks and colleagues (2006) for the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the AAN issued a practice parameter on "Prediction of outcome in comatose survivors after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (an evidence-based review)." The authors recommended that the assessment of poor prognosis can be guided by the bilateral absence of cortical SSEPs (N20 response) within 1 to 3 days (recommendation level B).

The AAN (Gronseth, 2000) recommends SSEPs as possibly useful to identify those at increased risk of for developing clinically definite MS.

Additional indications for SSEPs include: acute anoxic encephalopathy; deficit of the central nervous system identified on exam, but not explained by appropriate imaging studies; demyelinating diseases under certain conditions; unexplained myelopathy; spinocerebral degeneration (such as Friedreich’s ataxia); spinal cord lesions secondary to trauma when the need for surgical intervention is uncertain; or suspected brain death.

Motor Evoked Potentials (MEPs)

MEPs evaluate motor pathways located in the anterolateral spinal tracts perfused by the anterior spinal artery. Single- or repetitive-pulse stimulation of the brain causes the spinal cord and peripheral muscles to produce neuroelectrical signals known as MEPs. In a case series, Cantello and colleagues (2001) examined the use of MEPs for diagnosing psychogenic or hysterical paralysis. The series found that MEP studies assisted in the diagnosis of psychogenic paralysis and the authors noted that if nerve trunks and muscles were found to be intact, a psychogenic cause for paralysis may be implied.

A systematic review by Siow and colleagues in 2019 examined published literature on the MEPs as a potential biomarker for HSP. The authors identified 32 studies on MEPs and HSP published between 1987 and 2016. Studies were primarily case series/case reports or case-control studies. No pooled analyses of study data were performed due to differences in study methodologies and heterogeneity among study results. The most common finding of the included studies, according to the review’s authors, was absent or prolonged lower limb center motor conduction time (CMCT) in individuals with HSP (this was true for 78% of study participants). However, studies varied widely in their findings on the correlation between CMCT and clinical outcomes, such as disease severity and gait abnormalities. Prospective studies with long-term follow-up are needed to clarify the utility of MEPs as a prognostic biomarker for HSP.

Friedreich's ataxia: A rare genetic disease that affects the muscles and heart.

Hysterical paralysis: An uncommon psychogenic, nonorganic loss of motor function.

Visually evoked potential (VEP), (visually evoked response [VER] and visually evoked cortical potential [VECP] are equivalent): These terms refer to electrical potentials, initiated by brief visual stimuli, which are recorded from the scalp overlying the visual cortex. VEP waveforms are extracted from the electro-encephalogram (EEG) by signal averaging. VEPs are used primarily to measure the functional integrity of the visual pathways from the retina via the optic nerves to the visual cortex of the brain. Evoked potentials, whether auditory, visual or somatosensory, are extracted from the EEG by a simple computer program that saves a defined time period of EEG activity following a visual stimulus and isolates the VEP. Transient pattern VEPs have components that can be followed during maturation, pathological conditions and changes of visual acuity.

Peer Reviewed Publications:

1. Cantello R, Boccagni C, Comi C, et al. Diagnosis of psychogenic paralysis: the role of motor evoked potentials. J Neurol. 2001; 248(10):889-897.
2. Chen XW, Zhao YX. Comparison of isolated-check visual evoked potential and standard automated perimetry in early glaucoma and high-risk ocular hypertension. Int J Ophthalmol. 2017(a); 10(4):599-604.
3. Chen X, Zhao Y. Diagnostic performance of isolated-check visual evoked potential versus retinal ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer analysis in early primary open-angle glaucoma. BMC Ophthal. 2017(b); 17(1):77.
4. Djuric S, Djuric V, Zivkovic M, et al. Are somatosensory evoked potentials of the tibial nerve the most sensitive test in diagnosing multiple sclerosis? Neurol India. 2010; 58(4):537-541.
5. Fan X, Wu LL, Di X, et al. Applications of isolated-check visual evoked potential in early stage of open-angle glaucoma patients. Chin Med J (Engl). 2018; 131(20):2439-2446.
6. Horn FK, Kaltwasser C, Jünemann AG, et al. Objective perimetry using a four-channel multifocal VEP system: correlation with conventional perimetry and thickness of the retinal nerve fiber layer. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012; 96(4):554-559.
7. Pillai C, Ritch R, Derr P, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of short-duration transient visual evoked potentials (SD-tVEP) in discriminating normal from glaucomatous eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013; 54(4):2847-2852.
8. Sand T, Kvaløy MB, Wader T, Hovdal H. Evoked potential tests in clinical diagnosis. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2013; 133(9):960-965.
9. Sandroni C, D'Arrigo S, Cacciola S, et al. Prediction of poor neurological outcome in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med. 2020; 46(10):1803-1851.
10. Siow SF, Cameron Smail R, Ng K, et al. Motor evoked potentials in hereditary spastic paraplegia-a systematic review. Front Neurol. 2019; 10:967.
11. van Laerhoven H, de Haan TR, Offringa M, et al. Prognostic tests in term neonates with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2013; 131(1):88-98.
12. Wang X, Li RS, Wei YH, et al. Applications of the isolated-check visual evoked potential in primary open angle glaucoma with or without high myopia. Int J Ophthalmol. 2021; 14(5):704-713.
13. Xu LJ, Zhang L, Li SL, et al. Accuracy of isolated-check visual evoked potential technique for diagnosing primary open-angle glaucoma. Doc Ophthalmol. 2017; 135(2):107-119.
14. Young B, Eggenberger E, Kaufman D. Current electrophysiology in ophthalmology: a review. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2012; 23(6):497-505.

Government Agency, Medical Society, and Other Authoritative Publications:

1. American Clinical Neurophysiology Society. Guideline 9A: guidelines on evoked potentials. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2006; 23(2):125-137.
2. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). National Coverage Determination for evoked response tests. NCD #160.10. Effective January 15, 1980. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/view/ncd.aspx?ncdid=200&ncdver=1&bc=0. Accessed on January 26, 2026.
3. Creel DJ. Visually Evoked Potentials. 2012 Mar 01. In: Kolb H, Fernandez E, Nelson R, editors. Webvision: The organization of the retina and visual system [Internet]. Salt Lake City (UT): University of Utah Health Sciences Center; 1995. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK107218/pdf/CreelVEP.pdf. Accessed on January 26, 2026.
4. Gronseth GS, Ashman EJ. Practice parameter: the usefulness of evoked potentials in identifying clinically silent lesions in patients with suspected multiple sclerosis (an evidence-based review): Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2000; 54(9):1720-1725.
5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for visual impairment in children ages 1 to 5 years. January 2017. Available at: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/vision-in-children-ages-6-months-to-5-years-screening. Accessed on January 26, 2026.
6. Wijdicks EF, Hijdra A, Young GB, et al.; Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Practice parameter: prediction of outcome in comatose survivors after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (an evidence-based review): report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2006; 67(2):203-210.

1. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Understanding glaucoma: symptoms, causes, diagnosis, treatment. January 5, 2026. Available at: https://www.aao.org/eye-health/diseases/glaucoma-diagnosis. Accessed on January 26, 2026.
2. National Multiple Sclerosis Society. How is MS diagnosed? Available at: https://www.nationalmssociety.org/Symptoms-Diagnosis/Diagnosing-MS. Accessed on January 26, 2026.

Motor Evoked Potential
Motor Evoked Response
Somatosensory Evoked Potential
Somatosensory Evoked Response
Visual Evoked Potential
Visual Evoked Response

The use of specific product names is illustrative only. It is not intended to be a recommendation of one product over another, and is not intended to represent a complete listing of all products available.

Federal and State law, as well as contract language, and Coverage Guidelines take precedence over Clinical UM Guidelines. We reserve the right to review and update Clinical UM Guidelines periodically. Clinical guidelines approved by the Medical Policy & Technology Assessment Committee are available for general adoption by plans or lines of business for consistent review of the medical necessity of services related to the clinical guideline when the plan performs utilization review for the subject. Due to variances in utilization patterns, each plan may choose whether to adopt a particular Clinical UM Guideline. To determine if review is required for this Clinical UM Guideline, please contact the customer service number on the member's card.

Alternatively, commercial or FEP plans or lines of business which determine there is not a need to adopt the guideline to review services generally across all providers delivering services to Plan’s or line of business’s members may instead use the clinical guideline for provider education and/or to review the medical necessity of services for any provider who has been notified that his/her/its claims will be reviewed for medical necessity due to billing practices or claims that are not consistent with other providers, in terms of frequency or in some other manner.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without permission from the health plan.

© CPT Only – American Medical Association