Blue Cross of Idaho Logo

Express Sign-on

Thank you for registering with Blue Cross of Idaho

If you are an Individual or Family Member, please register here.

If you are a Medicare Advantage or Medicare Supplement member, please register here.


MP 2.01.20 Esophageal pH Monitoring

Medical Policy    
Subsection Last Review Status/Date
Reviewed with literature search/6:2014
Original Policy Date
Return to Medical Policy Index


Our medical policies are designed for informational purposes only and are not an authorization, or an explanation of benefits, or a contract.  Receipt of benefits is subject to satisfaction of all terms and conditions of the coverage.  Medical technology is constantly changing, and we reserve the right to review and update our policies periodically. 


Esophageal pH monitoring using wired or wireless devices can record the pH of the lower esophagus for a period of 1 to several days. These devices may aid in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in patients who have an uncertain diagnosis after clinical evaluation and endoscopy.


Acid reflux is the cause of heartburn and acid regurgitation esophagitis, which can lead to esophageal stricture. Acid reflux may also be the cause or a contributing factor in some cases of asthma, posterior laryngitis, chronic cough, dental erosions, chronic hoarseness, pharyngitis, subglottic stenosis or stricture, nocturnal choking, and recurrent pneumonia.

GERD is most commonly diagnosed by clinical evaluation and treated empirically with a trial of medical management. For patients who do not respond appropriately to medications, or who have recurrent chronic symptoms, endoscopy is indicated to confirm the diagnosis and assess the severity of reflux esophagitis. In some patients, endoscopy is nondiagnostic, or results are discordant with the clinical evaluation. In these cases, further diagnostic testing may be of benefit.

Esophageal monitoring is done through the use of a tube with a pH electrode attached to its tip, which is then passed to almost exactly 5 cm above the upper margin of the lower esophageal sphincter. The electrode is attached to a data logger worn on a waist belt or shoulder strap. Every instance of acid reflux, as well as its duration and pH, is recorded, indicating gastric acid reflux over a 24-hour period. Esophageal pH electrodes are U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 510(k) exempt Class I devices. A catheter-free, temporarily implanted device (Bravo™ pH Monitoring System, Medtronic) has been cleared for marketing by the FDA 510(k) process for the purpose of “gastroesophageal pH measurement and monitoring of gastric reflux in adults and children from 4 years of age.” Using endoscopic or manometric guidance, the capsule is temporarily implanted in the esophageal mucosa using a clip. The capsule records pH levels for up to 96 hours and transmits them via radiofrequency telemetry to a receiver worn in the patient’s belt. Data from the recorder are uploaded to a computer for analysis by a nurse or doctor.

Another technology closely related to pH monitoring is impedance-pH monitoring, which incorporates pH monitoring with measurements of impedance, a method of measuring reflux of liquid or gas of any pH. Multiple electrodes are placed along the length of the esophageal catheter. The impedance pattern detected can determine the direction of flow and the substance (liquid or gas). Impedance monitoring is able to identify reflux events in which the liquid is only slightly acidic or nonacidic.


Esophageal pH monitoring using a wireless or catheter-based system may be considered medically necessary for the following clinical indications in adults and children or adolescents able to report symptoms.*

  • Documentation of abnormal acid exposure in endoscopy-negative patients being considered for surgical antireflux repair
  • Evaluation of patients after antireflux surgery who are suspected of having ongoing abnormal reflux
  • Evaluation of patients with either normal or equivocal endoscopic findings and reflux symptoms that are refractory to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy
  • Evaluation of refractory reflux in patients with chest pain after cardiac evaluation and after a 1-month trial of PPI therapy
  • Evaluation of suspected otolaryngologic manifestations of GERD (ie, laryngitis, pharyngitis, chronic cough) that have failed to respond to at least 4 weeks of PPI therapy
  • Evaluation of concomitant GERD in an adult-onset, nonallergic asthmatic suspected of having reflux-induced asthma

24-hour catheter-based esophageal pH monitoring may be considered medically necessary in infants or children who are unable to report or describe symptoms of reflux with:

  • unexplained apnea;
  • bradycardia;
  • refractory coughing or wheezing, stridor, or recurrent choking (aspiration);
  • persistent or recurrent laryngitis; and
  • recurrent pneumonia.

Catheter-based impedance-pH monitoring is considered not medically necessary.

*Esophageal pH monitoring systems should be used in accordance with FDA-approved indications and age ranges.

Policy Guidelines

Manometry, when used for pH tip placement, should be considered part of the pH recording.

Since 2005, there has been a specific CPT code for catheter-free, wireless recording:

91035: Esophagus, gastroesophageal reflux test; with mucosal attached telemetry pH electrode placement, recording, analysis, and interpretation

The device may be placed with either endoscopic or manometry guidance.

In addition, a code was developed for catheter-based monitoring:

91034: Esophagus, gastroesophageal reflux test; with nasal catheter pH electrode(s) placement, recording, analysis and interpretation

Impedance-pH monitoring to test esophageal function is reported with the following CPT codes:

91037 Esophageal function test, gastroesophageal reflux test with nasal catheter intraluminal impedance electrode(s) placement, recording, analysis and interpretation;

91038 Esophageal function test, gastroesophageal reflux test with nasal catheter intraluminal impedance electrode(s) placement, recording, analysis and interpretation; prolonged (greater than 1 hour, up to 24 hours)

Benefit Application
BlueCard/National Account Issues

State or federal mandates (e.g., FEP) may dictate that all devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may not be considered investigational, and thus these devices may be assessed only on the basis of their medical necessity (i.e., 48-hour wireless pH monitoring).


This policy was originally created in 1996 and was updated regularly with searches of the MEDLINE database. The most recent literature review was performed for the period of April 2013 through May 21, 2014. The following is a summary of the key literature to date.

Esophageal pH monitoring using catheter-based systems

Esophageal pH monitoring for 24 hours using catheter-based systems has been an established technology, primarily used in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) that has not responded symptomatically to a program of medical therapy (including proton pump inhibitors [PPIs]) or in patients with refractory extra-esophageal symptoms). Although it is an established technology, aspects of its use as a diagnostic test for GERD are problematic and thus make it difficult to determine its utility, as well as the utility of potential alternative tests.

There is no independent reference standard for GERD for certain clinically relevant populations. Traditional pH monitoring has been evaluated in patients with endoscopically diagnosed GERD, where it has been shown to be positive 77% to 100% of the time.(1) However, in clinically defined but endoscopically negative patients, the test is positive from 0% to 71% of the time. In normal control populations, traditional pH monitoring is positive in 0% to 15% of subjects. Thus the test is imperfectly sensitive and specific in patients with known presence or absence of disease. The state of this evidence regarding the diagnostic capability of catheter-based pH monitoring led the authors of this technical review “…to conclude that ambulatory pH studies quantify esophageal acid exposure but that this has an imperfect correlation with reflux-related symptoms, esophageal sensitivity, or response to acid suppressive therapy.”(1)

Without a reference standard for GERD, it is difficult to compare diagnostic test performance between different types of tests. It is possible to determine whether 2 tests correspond close enough that they might be considered equivalent tests. Use of 1 test versus another may result in better patient outcomes, if despite being an imperfect test, differences in patient management based on the test results result in overall improved patient outcomes. However, this type of argument would require rigorous studies that follow patients beyond test outcome and are organized and analyzed such that a valid inference of improved outcome due to the use of the test can be made.

Wireless pH monitoring

A 2006 TEC Special Report on wireless esophageal monitoring made several observations regarding wireless pH monitoring.(2) Six case series demonstrated high success rates in successfully performing the procedure, with success rates over 90% in achieving a 48-hour pH study. Two studies that surveyed patients who received wireless pH monitoring and patients who received traditional catheter monitoring showed less discomfort, less disruption of daily activities, and higher overall satisfaction with the experience. Studies that evaluated test positivity in clinically diagnosed GERD cases and normal controls showed similar results as have been reported in such patients using traditional pH monitoring. Studies directly comparing the performance between traditional catheter and wireless pH monitoring in the same patients showed fairly close correlation between the 2 types of studies after correcting for calibration differences. The ideal cut-point for test positivity was different for the 2 types of tests.

Some studies attempted to support an argument that the longer monitoring time that the wireless monitor allows results in superior test performance. However, without a reference standard, or showing superior patient outcomes based on the longer test, such an argument cannot be made. The longer monitoring period usually results in a larger proportion of tests that are classified as positive, depending on the method of determining a positive test. As reviewed in the 2006 TEC Special Report, Prakash and Clouse compared the diagnostic yield for a single day of monitoring with the complete 2 days of monitoring.(3) The authors reported that the second day of recording time increased the number of subjects recording symptoms by 6.8%. However, this study had several methodologic flaws. Ideally, a study comparing the diagnostic performance of an additional day of monitoring would require an independent reference standard or demonstration of improved patient outcomes when managing patients with a 1-day versus a 2-day study. In this study, the 2-day study was essentially considered the “reference test,” and there was no discussion of how the second day of monitoring was used to improve patient management in this heterogeneous group of patients. In addition, in their statistical analysis, the authors eliminated patients who did not report any symptoms during the testing period, thus deflating the denominator and inflating the yield of the additional day of testing. Finally, the 1-day test was essentially a component of the 2-day test, and thus the 2 monitoring periods were not independent, further limiting any comparison between them. It should not be presumed that the greater number of positive tests produced by a longer duration of test is evidence of a superior test.

Studies published since the 2006 TEC Special Report essentially show similar types of findings regarding the correlation of wireless pH monitoring and standard catheter monitoring. Wenneret al, in another study of 64 patients with GERD and 50 asymptomatic controls, showed a sensitivity of 59% to 65%, when setting the specificity to 90% to 95%.(4) This was noted to be worse than other studies of traditional pH monitoring, but the patient population may have had less severe disease. The study by Schneider et al showed similar diagnostic performance of wireless and traditional pH monitoring.(5) Hakanson et al evaluated simultaneous wireless and traditional pH testing in 92 patients.(6) Wireless pH testing showed consistently lower estimates of acid exposure than traditional pH testing. The 2 techniques were correlated (r2=0.66); however, the range between limits of agreement was wide. The 2 techniques were concordant regarding the final diagnosis 82.1% of the time.

Additional studies since the 2006 TEC Special Report also repeat the findings that a longer period of monitoring increases the proportion of positive tests. Scarpulla et al attempted 96-hour monitoring in 83 patients.(7) Monitoring for the full 96 hours was successful in 41% of patients. In these patients, the proportion showing some degree of pathologic acid exposure increased as the time of monitoring increased. Garrean et al studied the use of 96-hour pH testing where during the first 2 days of monitoring, the patients were off therapy, and during the second 2 days, the patients were prescribed PPIs.(8) As expected, during the second 2 days, fewer patients showed reflux symptoms. It is difficult to determine from the analysis of data how such a testing protocol improves the diagnosis of GERD. Grigolon et al showed that in 51 patients receiving prolonged monitoring, the 96-hour test reduced the number of indeterminate tests from 11 to 5.(9) In this particular study, comparison of outcomes of patients receiving wireless monitoring and a matched control group of patients receiving traditional catheter monitoring showed similar outcome and satisfaction.

Impedance-pH testing

Evidence supporting the use of impedance-pH testing suffers from similar issues as the evaluation of wireless pH testing; lack of a reference standard, and lack of evidence showing improved patient outcomes. Many studies use the argument that an increase in positive tests, or diagnostic yield as it is called, by itself is evidence that supports the use of the test. However, the increase in positive tests, if it is reflective of a potentially increased sensitivity, may be accompanied by a decrease in specificity. The net effect on patient management and patient outcomes is not certain.

Several studies have demonstrated a higher yield of positive tests when using impedance-pH testing and identifying reflux events that are non- or only weakly acidic (and thus would not be detected using pH testing alone).(10-12) Bajbouj et al studied 41 patients with atypical GERD symptoms with numerous tests.(10) The test that produced the highest number of positive findings was impedance-pH testing. Bredenoord et al did a similar study in 48 patients.(11) A higher proportion of subjects had positive tests when using impedance-pH data than when using pH data alone (77% vs 67%, respectively). A study by Mainie et al showed similar findings.(12)

Studies have examined the issue of performing impedance-pH testing while the patient is currently on acid suppression therapy. Vela et al demonstrated that during acid suppressive therapy, the total number of reflux episodes is similar, but there are fewer episodes of acidic reflux.(13)

Although impedance-pH testing produces a higher number of positive tests, particularly when compared with traditional or wired pH testing in the setting of concurrent acid suppressive therapy, there is not sufficient evidence that these test results are more accurate, nor is there a clear link to improved patient outcomes when using impedance-pH testing compared with other methods of measuring pH. Thus, this testing is considered not medically necessary.

Ongoing Clinical Trials

A May 22, 2014, search of online site, identified several active studies using esophageal pH and impedance monitoring as an evaluation tool for research of various treatments such as pharmaceutical products for GERD. However, no active studies on the diagnostic and clinical utility of esophageal pH and impedance monitoring were identified.

Clinical Input Received Through Physician Specialty Societies and Academic Medical Centers

In response to requests, input was received from 1 physician specialty society (2 reviewers) and 3 academic medical centers while this policy was under review for 2010. While the various physician specialty societies and academic medical centers may collaborate with and make recommendations during this process through the provision of appropriate reviewers, input received does not represent an endorsement or position statement by the physician specialty societies or academic medical centers, unless otherwise noted.The input was mixed. Most of the reviewers indicated that the wireless device was more comfortable and allowed patients to have more varied activities during the recording. One reviewer cited problems with availability of the catheter-based systems. Most agreed that a linkage between wireless monitoring and improved health outcome had not been demonstrated.


Esophageal pH monitoring using wired or wireless devices can record the pH of the lower esophagus for a period of 1 to several days. These devices may aid in the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in patients who have an uncertain diagnosis after clinical evaluation and endoscopy. Therefore, the use of wired or wireless esophageal pH monitoring may be considered medically necessary in the patient meeting the above criteria.

Given the lack of a criterion standard, evidence supporting the use of impedance-pH testing is lacking. While impedance-pH testing may increase positive tests or diagnostic yield, the potentially increased sensitivity may be accompanied by a decrease in specificity and the net effect on patient management and patient outcomes is not certain. Therefore, impedance-pH testing is considered not medically necessary

Practice Guidelines and Position Statements

The American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) released practice guidelines on esophageal reflux testing in 2007.(14) The literature up to 2006 was reviewed. Although the literature on wireless pH testing was extensively reviewed, the recommendations for testing made no distinction between wireless and traditional pH monitoring. An indirect endorsement of wireless monitoring might be inferred from a statement that says that a 48-hour study would produce a greater diagnostic yield from a symptom-association test. Symptom-association tests require statistical testing of the data, and a 48-hour test produces more data points. However, apparently these statistical correlation tests are not perfect, as the guidelines state that such measures “do not ensure a response to either medical or surgical antireflux therapies.” No studies were cited in these guidelines that indicate superior outcomes for patients for treatment guided by wireless pH testing versus traditional pH testing. The major advantage for the wireless system cited was patient tolerability.

Impedance pH monitoring was cited as “may be useful” (a lower category of recommendation than for pH monitoring) for evaluation of patients with insufficient response to medical therapy in whom documentation of nonacid reflux would alter clinical management. It was suggested that impedance monitoring has a greater yield for findings than pH monitoring when performed on PPI therapy. The last statement of the guideline states that implications of an abnormal impedance test are unproven at this time.

In 2013, ACG published guidelines on the diagnosis and management of GERD.(15) The guidelines indicate “ambulatory esophageal reflux monitoring is indicated before consideration of endoscopic or surgical therapy in patients with nonerosive disease, as part of the evaluation of patients refractory to PPI therapy, and in situations when the diagnosis of GERD is in question.” This was a strong recommendation based on a low level of evidence. The guidelines note there is limited evidence and lack of clear consensus on how testing should be performed, eg, catheter-based pH, wireless pH, or impedance-pH, for refractory GERD.

The American Gastroenterological Association released a medical position statement and accompanying technical review on the management of GERD in 2008.(16) Ambulatory impedance-pH, catheter pH, and wireless pH monitoring were all supported as methods to evaluate patients with suspected GERD with otherwise normal endoscopy and no response to PPI therapy. The guideline is classified as a “grade B” recommendation, denoting fair evidence that the practice improves health outcomes. The guideline additionally states that the wireless pH monitor has superior sensitivity to catheter pH monitoring because of the extended period of recording.

However, as noted previously, an increase in positive tests has been documented in other reports as producing both increased sensitivity and decreased specificity relative to the reference standard used in the particular study. Thus, taking into account both characteristics of diagnostic performance, it is unknown as to whether patient outcomes are improved.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence released technology appraisal guidance on catheterless esophageal pH monitoring in July 2006.(17) This guidance indicates catheterless esophageal pH monitoring appears to be safe and effective and is commonly indicated for GERD symptoms refractory to PPIs and for GERD symptom recurrence after antireflux surgery.

Medicare National Coverage

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a national coverage determination for 24-hour ambulatory pH monitoring in 1985.(18) CMS indicates 24-hour ambulatory pH monitoring is covered for suspected gastric reflux when conventional tests have not been able to confirm reflux.


  1. Kahrilas PJ, Quigley EM. Clinical esophageal pH recording: a technical review for practice guideline development. Gastroenterology 1996; 110(6):1982-96.
  2. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Assicaiton Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Special Report: Wireless pH Monitoring. TEC Assessments 2006; 21(2).
  3. Prakash C, Clouse RE. Value of extended recording time with wireless pH monitoring in evaluating gastroesophageal reflux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 3(4):329-34.
  4. Wenner J, Johansson J, Johnsson F et al. Optimal thresholds and discriminatory power of 48-h wireless esophageal pH monitoring in the diagnosisof GERD. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102(9):1862-9.
  5. Schneider JH, Kramer KM, Konigsrainer A et al. Ambulatory pH: monitoring with a wireless system. Surg Endosc 2007; 21(11):2076-80.
  6. Hakanson BS, Berggren P, Granqvist S et al. Comparison of wireless 48-h (Bravo) versus traditional ambulatory 24-h esophageal pH monitoring. Scand J Gastroenterol 2009; 44(3):276-83.
  7. Scarpulla G, Camilleri S, Galante P et al. The impact of prolonged pH measurements on the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease: 4-day wireless pH studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102(12):2642-7.
  8. Garrean CP, Zhang Q, Gonsalves N et al. Acid reflux detection and symptom-reflux association using 4-day wireless pH recording combining 48-hour periods off and on PPI therapy. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103(7):1631-7.
  9. Grigolon A, Consonni D, Bravi I et al. Diagnostic yield of 96-h wireless pH monitoring and usefulness in patients' management. Scand J Gastroenterol 2011; 46(5):522-30.
  10. Bajbouj M, Becker V, Neuber M et al. Combined pH-metry/impedance monitoring increases the diagnostic yield in patients with atypical gastroesophageal reflux symptoms. Digestion 2007; 76(3-4):223-8.
  11. Bredenoord AJ, Weusten BL, Timmer R et al. Addition of esophageal impedance monitoring to pH monitoring increases the yield of symptom association analysis in patients off PPI therapy. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101(3):453-9.
  12. Mainie I, Tutuian R, Shay S et al. Acid and non-acid reflux in patients with persistent symptoms despite acid suppressive therapy: a multicentre study using combined ambulatory impedance-pH monitoring. Gut 2006; 55(10):1398-402.
  13. Vela MF, Camacho-Lobato L, Srinivasan R et al. Simultaneous intraesophageal impedance and pH measurement of acid and nonacid gastroesophageal reflux: effect of omeprazole. Gastroenterology 2001; 120(7):1599-606.
  14. Hirano I, Richter JE. ACG practice guidelines: esophageal reflux testing. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102(3):668-85.
  15. Katz PO, Gerson LB, Vela MF. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108(3):308-28; quiz 29.
  16. Kahrilas PJ, Shaheen NJ, Vaezi MF et al. American Gastroenterological Association Medical Position Statement on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology 2008; 135(4):1383-91, 91 e1-5.
  17. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Catheterless esophageal pH monitoring. July 2006. Available online at: Last accessed May 22, 2014.
  18. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. NCD for 24-Hour Ambulatory Esophageal pH Monitoring (100.3). Effective Date June 11, 1985. Available online at: Last accessed May 22, 2014.




CPT  91035  Esophagus, gastroesophageal reflux test; with mucosal attached telemetry pH electrode placement, recording, analysis and interpretation 
  91034  Esophagus, gastroesophageal reflux test; with nasal catheter pH electrode(s) placement, recording, analysis and interpretation 
  91037  Esophageal function test, gastroesophageal reflux test with nasal catheter intraluminal impedance electrode(s) placement, recording,analysis and interpretation;
  91038 Esophageal function test, gastroesophageal reflux test with nasal catheter intraluminal impedance electrode(s) placement, recording,analysis and interpretation; prolonged (greater than 1 hour, up to 24 hours)
ICD-9 Procedure  No Code   
ICD-9 Diagnosis  427.89  Bradycardia 
  476.0  Laryngitis, chronic 
  493.00 – 493.90  Asthma without mention of status asthmaticus code range 
  507.0  Aspiration pneumonia 
  530.81  Esophageal reflux/gastroesophageal reflux disease 
  770.81–770.89  Respiratory problems (including apnea) originating in prenatal period, code range 
  780.57  Sleep apnea 
  784.99 Choking sensation
  786.03 Apnea
  786.07 Wheezing
  786.1  Stridor 
  786.2  Cough 
ICD-10-CM (effective 10/1/15) R00.1 Bradycardia, unspecified
   J37.0 Chronic laryngitis
   J45.20-J45.99 Asthma with/without mention of status asthmaticus code range
   J69.0 Pneumonitis due to inhalation of food and vomit
   K21.0-K21.9 Esophageal reflux/gastroesophageal reflux disease code range
   P28.0- P28.9 Other Respiratory conditions originating in the perinatal period, code range
   G47.30 – G47.33 Sleep apnea code range
   R06.81 Apnea, not elsewhere classified
    R06.2 Wheezing
   R06.1 Stridor
   R05 Cough
ICD-10-PCS (effective 10/1/15)     ICD-10-PCS codes are only used for inpatient services. There is no specific ICD-10-PCS code for this procedure but one of the following codes might be used.
   4A1B7GZ, 4A1B8GZ Monitoring, gastrointestinal, secretion, code by approach
HCPCS  No code   
Type of Service  Medical 
Place of Service  Outpatient 
Physician’s office


Acid Reflux Test
Bravo pH Monitoring System
Esophageal pH Monitoring
Gastroesophageal Reflux Monitoring
Monitoring, Esophageal pH
pH Monitoring, Esophageal

Policy History

Date Action Reason
07/31/96 Add to Medicine section New policy
04/15/02 Replace policy Policy reviewed without literature review; new review date only
07/17/03 Replace policy Policy reviewed with literature review, focusing on wireless systems, considered investigational
11/9/04 Replace policy Policy updated with literature review; no change in policy statement
09/27/05 Replace policy Policy updated with literature review; no change in policy statement. Reference number 3 added
12/14/05 Replace policy – coding correction only CPT code 91034 added to policy guidelines and code table. 
07/20/06 Local Policy Policy updated with a literature review through March 2006 and the February 2006 TEC Special Report. Policy statement changed to indicate that wireless monitoring is not medically necessary. Reference numbers 4–6 added
03/11/10 Replace policy (no longer local) Policy updated with literature search; clinical input reviewed, reference numbers 11–15 added. Wireless monitoring may be considered medically necessary in patients who meet criteria for testing but cannot tolerate catheter-based testing. Wireless monitoring in all other situations is considered not medically necessary; time interval in policy statement for this monitoring changed to read “48 to 96 hours
4/14/11 Replace policy (local policy status renewed) Policy updated with literature search. Rationale revised extensively. Impedance-pH testing added to policy. References 1 and 9-13 added. New policy statement regarding impedance-pH testing as not medically necessary added; no other changes to policy statements.  
7/12/12 Replace policy (no longer local) Policy updated with literature search through May 2012; reference numbers 17-18 added. Added wireless pH monitoring to the first medically necessary policy statement; third and fourth policy statements on 48- to 96-hour, catheter-free, wireless esophageal monitoring deleted. Added monitoring must be done in accordance with FDA approved indications and age ranges to policy statement. No other changes to policy statements
6/13/13 Replace policy Policy updated with literature search through April 2013. Reference 16 updated. Removed “24-hour” from the policy statement on impedance monitoring as catheter-based impedance monitoring for any length of time is considered not medically necessary. No other changes to policy statements
6/12/14 Replace policy Policy updated with literature review through May 21, 2014; reference number 15 added. Policy statements unchanged


Resource Center

Find a Provider Find a Pharmacy Medicare Medicare Formulary