CARC 216 Active

CO-216: Based on Findings of a Review Organization

TL;DR

A review organization denied the claim. Appeal with clinical evidence addressing their specific findings.

Action
Appeal
Who Pays
Provider
Appeal
Yes
Patient Impact
None
Disclaimer
This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional billing advice. Always verify information against your payer contracts and current coding guidelines. Consult a certified billing specialist for specific claim issues.

What Does CO-216 Mean?

With CO (Contractual Obligation), the review organization's findings result in a contractual denial. Appeal with comprehensive clinical documentation addressing the specific findings.

CARC 216 indicates that an external or internal review organization evaluated the claim and determined that the service was not payable as billed. The review organization may have concluded that the service was not medically necessary, was not provided at the appropriate level of care, or did not meet the clinical criteria for coverage.

Review organizations include Quality Improvement Organizations (QIOs) for Medicare, independent review entities for commercial payers, and state-mandated review bodies. Their findings carry significant weight in the appeals process and typically reflect a clinical assessment of the medical records.

Common Causes

Cause Frequency
Utilization review determined service was not medically necessary A review organization or the payer's utilization review department determined that the service was not medically necessary based on clinical criteria Most Common
Independent medical review upheld the denial An independent review organization (IRO) reviewed the claim and upheld the payer's original denial decision Common
Peer review found documentation insufficient A peer-to-peer or clinical review found that the clinical documentation did not support the level of service billed Common
Quality review identified care concerns A quality review organization identified issues with the appropriateness of the care provided Occasional
Workers compensation utilization review denial A workers compensation utilization review organization denied the treatment based on evidence-based guidelines Occasional

How to Resolve

  1. Review the findings Obtain and analyze the review organization's determination.
  2. Gather additional evidence Compile clinical documentation, guidelines, and literature supporting the service.
  3. Appeal to the next level Submit a detailed appeal addressing each finding point with supporting evidence.
  4. Request peer-to-peer review Request a clinical discussion with the review organization's medical director.
Appeal Guide

Appeal with comprehensive clinical documentation that addresses the specific findings of the review organization. Include physician narrative letters, relevant peer-reviewed literature, clinical guidelines supporting the service, and detailed operative or treatment notes. Request a peer-to-peer review with the payer's medical director. If internal appeals fail, request an external review by an independent review organization.

Common RARC Pairings

The RARC code tells you exactly what triggered the CO-216:

RARC Description
N386 This decision was based on a National Coverage Determination (NCD) or Local Coverage Determination (LCD). Review the specific NCD or LCD cited in the review organization's findings →
N130 Consult plan benefit documents/guidelines for coverage of this service. Review plan benefit guidelines referenced by the review organization →

How to Prevent CO-216

General Prevention

Also Filed As

The same CARC 216 may appear with different Group Codes:

Related Denial Codes

Sources

  1. https://x12.org/codes/claim-adjustment-reason-codes
  2. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/ohs/health-it-advisory-council/apcd-advisory-group/data-submission-guide-workgroup/meeting-materials/6-30-22/carc-codes_final.pdf
  3. https://www.aapc.com/resources/claim-adjustment-reason-codes
  4. Codes maintained by X12. Visit x12.org for official definitions.