CMS NCD 298 Update: FDG PET for Myocardial Viability Coverage Rules Explained

CMS has modified NCD 298, the National Coverage Determination governing FDG PET imaging for myocardial viability—a critical policy for cardiology practices, nuclear medicine departments, and the revenue cycle teams that support them. This update, effective March 12, 2026, reaffirms and clarifies the coverage framework that determines when Medicare will pay for FDG PET scans used to assess whether dysfunctional heart muscle is viable or scarred. If your facility performs cardiac PET imaging or bills for revascularization workups, here's what you need to know.

Field Detail
Payer CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services)
Policy FDG PET for Myocardial Viability
Policy Code NCD 298
Change Type Modified
Effective Date 2026-03-12
Impact Level Medium
Specialties Affected Cardiology, Nuclear Medicine, Cardiovascular Surgery, Radiology
Key Action Verify that FDG PET claims are documented as either a primary study prior to revascularization or a follow-up to an inconclusive SPECT—and confirm that inconclusive PET results are not triggering unbillable follow-up SPECT orders.

What NCD 298 Actually Covers: FDG PET and Myocardial Viability Under Medicare

Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET imaging for myocardial viability is used to distinguish between two very different clinical situations: heart muscle that is dysfunctional but still alive (hibernating myocardium), and heart muscle that has been permanently replaced by scar tissue. That distinction matters enormously—patients with viable but hibernating myocardium may benefit significantly from revascularization, while those with predominantly scar tissue may not.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services covers FDG PET for this indication under NCD 298, and the policy establishes two clear pathways to coverage:

  1. As a primary or initial diagnostic study prior to revascularization
  2. Following an inconclusive SPECT (single photon emission computed tomography) test

Both pathways have been in place since October 1, 2002, and the modified policy maintains this structure. Full ring and partial ring PET scanners are covered under both pathways.


CMS Medicare Coverage Criteria for FDG PET Myocardial Viability Studies

Medical necessity under NCD 298 hinges on patient presentation and the sequence of diagnostic workup. The policy targets patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and left ventricular dysfunction—specifically those with partial loss of heart muscle movement who are being evaluated as candidates for revascularization.

For billing purposes, the clinical picture needs to support one of two scenarios:

Scenario A — Primary Study: The FDG PET is ordered as the first-line imaging study to assess viability before a revascularization decision is made. No prior SPECT is required. Documentation should establish compromised ventricular function and the clinical rationale for revascularization evaluation.

Scenario B — Post-Inconclusive SPECT: A SPECT was performed and returned inconclusive results. FDG PET is then ordered to resolve the diagnostic question. The referring physician's medical record must document that the SPECT was inconclusive—not simply that a SPECT was performed.

Documentation requirements under this NCD sit with the referring physician, not just the imaging facility. The medical record should clearly reflect which pathway applies and why the study was ordered. This is a common audit vulnerability—imaging centers sometimes have strong internal documentation while the referring physician's chart is sparse.


The Coverage Limitation Billing Teams Get Wrong: SPECT After PET

NCD 298 includes a limitation that catches facilities off guard. The policy is explicit: if a patient receives an FDG PET study with inconclusive results, a follow-up SPECT test is not covered by Medicare.

This is a one-way street. An inconclusive SPECT can lead to a covered PET. An inconclusive PET does not lead to a covered SPECT. Billing a SPECT following an inconclusive FDG PET will result in a denial, and appealing that denial without understanding this policy limitation wastes everyone's time.

This sequencing rule should be built into your order review workflow. If a provider is ordering SPECT after an inconclusive PET for the same viability question, the billing team needs to flag that before the claim goes out—not after the remittance comes back.


Historical Context: Scanner Types and the 2001–2002 Coverage Timeline

The policy's historical provisions are worth understanding for any retrospective billing or compliance work, though they have no practical impact on current claims:

The current policy, last clinically reviewed in September 2002, has remained substantively stable on the coverage criteria—though this 2026 modification reflects CMS's ongoing administrative review process.


Cross-Referenced CMS Policies Your Team Should Know

NCD 298 doesn't exist in isolation. CMS directs readers to two related NCDs that govern the broader imaging context:

Claims processing instructions are governed by Transmittal 527 of the Medicare Claims Processing Manual. If your billing system has custom payer rules built around cardiac PET, verify they align with both NCD 298 and §220.6.


Sample Version Diff Line-by-line changes
Previous VersionCurrent Version
Coverage is considered experimental and investigational for all indicationsCoverage is considered medically necessary when specific criteria are met
Prior authorization is not requiredPrior authorization is required for initial treatment
Documentation must include clinical historyDocumentation must include clinical history
Re-review every 24 monthsRe-review every 12 months with updated clinical documentation

Affected Codes

The policy document for NCD 298 does not list specific CPT or HCPCS codes. Billing teams should reference the Medicare Coverage Database directly and consult with your MAC (Medicare Administrative Contractor) to confirm the applicable procedure codes for FDG PET myocardial viability studies in your region. Cross-referencing NCD §220.6 (PET Scans) may also yield relevant code-level guidance.

No ICD-10 diagnosis codes are specified in the NCD 298 policy document. Clinical documentation should support diagnoses consistent with ischemic cardiomyopathy and left ventricular dysfunction to establish medical necessity.


This policy is now in effect (since 2026-03-12). Verify your claims match the updated criteria above.

What Your Billing Team Should Do

#Action Item
1

Audit your FDG PET claim sequence now. Pull the last 90 days of cardiac PET claims and flag any where a SPECT was billed after an inconclusive FDG PET for the same patient and same indication. Identify any that are at risk for audit or recoupment.

2

Update your order intake process to capture the clinical pathway. Add a field or checkbox to your pre-authorization or order review workflow that confirms whether the FDG PET is being ordered as (a) a primary study prior to revascularization or (b) a follow-up to an inconclusive SPECT. This documentation requirement falls on the referring physician's record—build a process to request it before imaging occurs.

3

Educate referring physicians on the inconclusive SPECT documentation standard. "Inconclusive" must be explicit in the chart note—not implied. Work with your cardiology and nuclear medicine liaisons to ensure the referring physician's documentation uses language that maps clearly to the NCD 298 coverage criteria.

+ 2 more action items

Enter your email to unlock all tables — 100% free

Unlocks every table on this page. Free weekly digest included. By subscribing you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy.

Get the Full Picture

Track this policy across versions, search 1,500+ policies by CPT code, and get real-time alerts when any payer changes coverage.

🔍 Search by any code 🔔 Real-time alerts 📊 Line-by-line diffs ⏰ Deadline tracking
Get Full Access → $99/mo · 14-day money-back guarantee