Skip to content
Provider eligibilityCARC

CO-38 denial code

Services not provided or authorized by designated network or primary care providers

The plan required the service to come from, or be authorised by, a designated provider.

How to fix it

Obtain a retroactive referral where the plan permits it, or appeal with evidence the referral requirement was met.

How to prevent it

Confirm at scheduling whether the plan is gatekeeper-based and whether a current referral is on file.

In practice

A patient with an HMO plan self-refers to a specialist. The visit happens, the specialist bills, and the claim returns CO-38 because the plan required the primary care physician to authorise the referral first.

Gatekeeper plans make the referral a condition of payment rather than an administrative nicety. Without it the service is treated as though it were never authorised, regardless of how appropriate the care was or how clearly the patient needed it.

Many plans permit a retroactive referral within a defined window, often thirty to sixty days, if the primary care physician is willing to issue one. That is the fastest route. Where the window has closed, the appeal has to argue urgency or that a referral genuinely existed and was not transmitted.

What sits behind it

The reason this denial lands on the specialist rather than the primary care physician is worth understanding, because it feels unfair and shapes how practices respond. The plan pays the rendering provider, so the rendering provider carries the loss, even though the referral was somebody else's to issue.

That asymmetry makes verification at scheduling the only real defence. Confirming referral presence when the appointment is booked costs a few minutes; discovering its absence after the encounter costs the entire visit, and patients rarely accept a bill for a service they believed was covered.

Related codes divide the same territory more finely. CO-288 states the referral was simply absent, CO-287 that its visit limit was exceeded, and CO-243 that a network gatekeeper declined to authorise. Reading which one arrived narrows what to ask for when calling the primary care office.

Related codes

Terms used here — Prior Authorization · Out-of-Network · Denial

How we handle it — Prior Authorization · Denial Management · Eligibility Verification

Primary sources

The rules behind CO-38, at the bodies that publish them.

Looking for a different code? Search all 190 CARC and RARC codes

Questions about CO-38

Often, within a window the plan defines — commonly thirty to sixty days from the date of service. It requires the primary care physician to issue it retroactively, which most will do for a patient they genuinely referred informally. Ask before appealing, because it is faster and more reliable.

Because payment flows to the rendering provider, so the rendering provider absorbs the denial even though the referral was the primary care physician's to issue. This is exactly why confirming the referral at scheduling, rather than trusting that one exists, is the only effective protection.

Rarely. Referral requirements are characteristic of HMO and point-of-service designs. A PPO producing this code usually signals either a plan misidentified at verification or a specific service carrying its own authorisation requirement independent of the network structure.

Find out what your denials are costing you

A free billing audit reviews your denial rate, AR aging and clean claim rate against industry benchmarks. Takes about two minutes to request. No sales pitch.

No setup fees · You pay when we collect · Pricing from 3% of net collections