⚠️
Demonstration case studyThe patient, insurer interaction, and dollar amounts below are fabricated to illustrate how BillHero works on a common real-world denial pattern. No real patient's data is shown on this page.
Case study — Preventive care denial

A screening colonoscopy got reclassified as diagnostic. The insurer billed $1,847. BillHero got it zeroed out in 32 days.

A routine preventive procedure becomes a four-figure bill the moment the gastroenterologist spots and removes a small polyp. This denial pattern is one of the most common ACA §2713 violations in the US — and one of the most reliably overturned on appeal.

Billed
$1,847
Recovered
$1,847
Turnaround
32 days

The patient

Age
47
State
Virginia
Insurer
Anthem BCBS (commercial PPO)
Network status
In-network provider
Visit type
Screening colonoscopy
USPSTF grade
A (ages 45–75)

What happened

Maya, 47, scheduled a routine screening colonoscopy with her in-network gastroenterologist. She had no symptoms — this was a standard preventive exam recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for adults 45 and older. Under the Affordable Care Act, preventive services with a USPSTF grade A or B recommendation must be covered with no patient cost-sharing.

During the procedure, the gastroenterologist identified and removed a small polyp. The specimen was sent to pathology. Everything else about the visit was routine.

Three weeks later, Maya received an Explanation of Benefits showing she owed $1,847. Anthem had reclassified the visit from screening (CPT 45378) to diagnostic (CPT 45385, colonoscopy with biopsy) and applied her deductible. The EOB listed the denial reason as: "Procedure billed as diagnostic; patient cost-sharing applies per plan."

Maya uploaded the EOB and her Anthem Summary of Benefits into BillHero.

The EOB excerpt

This is the kind of line-item a user would upload to BillHero. Identifying numbers are fabricated.

EXPLANATION OF BENEFITS — ANTHEM BCBS
Patient: [REDACTED]       Member ID: [REDACTED]
Claim #: [REDACTED]       Service Date: 2026-02-12
Provider: Blue Ridge Gastroenterology (in-network)

Line items
──────────────────────────────────────────────
CPT 45385  Colonoscopy w/ lesion removal    $2,140.00
CPT 88305  Pathology, Level IV              $   312.00
                                          ──────────
Total billed                                  $2,452.00
Allowed amount                                $1,847.00
Plan paid                                     $    0.00
Deductible applied                            $1,847.00
Patient responsibility                        $1,847.00

Remark: "Service billed as diagnostic. Cost-share
per plan terms. Screening exam coverage applies
only when no polyp is found or removed."

What BillHero found

After parsing the EOB and cross-referencing the uploaded Summary of Benefits, BillHero surfaced a single high-confidence issue:

87% win probability180 days to appeal

Screening colonoscopy wrongly coded as diagnostic after incidental polyp removal

$1,847
at stake

Your colonoscopy was a screening procedure recommended by USPSTF. Under ACA §2713 and CMS FAQ Part XII (2013), finding and removing a polyp during a screening does not convert the visit into a diagnostic one — the entire procedure must still be covered at 100% with no patient cost-sharing. Anthem's policy language appears to agree. The denial is a coding error, not a coverage decision.

You'll need:
  • Referral or order for screening colonoscopy (not diagnostic)
  • Operative note confirming screening intent
  • Page of your Summary of Benefits listing preventive care at $0
  • USPSTF recommendation statement for colorectal cancer screening

The appeal letter BillHero drafted

An abridged excerpt. The full letter includes a header block with policy and claim identifiers, a formal request for first-level internal appeal, and a submission checklist.

[DATE]

Anthem BCBS Appeals
P.O. Box [REDACTED]
Richmond, VA [REDACTED]

Re:  First-Level Internal Appeal
     Member: [Patient Name]          Member ID: [REDACTED]
     Claim Number: [REDACTED]        Date of Service: 2026-02-12

Dear Appeals Review Committee,

I am appealing the denial of claim [REDACTED] and requesting that the
service be reprocessed as a preventive screening with no cost-sharing,
as required by Section 2713 of the Affordable Care Act and 45 CFR
§147.130.

Factual background. On February 12, 2026, I received a colonoscopy
at Blue Ridge Gastroenterology, an in-network provider. The procedure
was ordered and performed as a routine screening colonoscopy — I am
47 years old, asymptomatic, with no prior history of colorectal
disease, and the procedure was scheduled consistent with the
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Grade A recommendation
for colorectal cancer screening in adults aged 45–75. The referring
order and operative note both document screening intent (enclosed).

During the screening, the gastroenterologist identified and removed a
single small polyp. The tissue was sent to pathology. There were no
other findings and no other procedures.

Anthem has processed the claim as diagnostic (CPT 45385) and applied
$1,847.00 to my deductible. The remark code states that screening
coverage does not apply when a polyp is removed.

Why this processing is incorrect. Federal guidance explicitly
addresses this exact scenario. The Departments of Labor, HHS, and
Treasury issued a tri-agency FAQ (ACA Implementation FAQs Part XII,
Q5, February 2013) clarifying that polyp removal during a screening
colonoscopy is an integral part of the preventive service and may
not be billed with patient cost-sharing. This guidance is binding on
non-grandfathered group health plans, including this one. A series
of follow-up FAQs (Part XXVI, Q7; Part XLIII, Q5) have reiterated
and expanded the rule.

My own Summary of Benefits, issued by Anthem for this plan year,
confirms: "Preventive care services recommended under the U.S.
Preventive Services Task Force with a grade of A or B are covered
at 100% when provided by in-network providers, with no deductible,
copayment, or coinsurance." Colorectal cancer screening for adults
45 and older is a USPSTF Grade A recommendation.

Relief requested. Please:

1. Reprocess the claim under the preventive-care benefit at $0
   patient responsibility.
2. Issue a corrected EOB.
3. Confirm the correction in writing to the member and the provider.

Enclosed: referral for screening colonoscopy; operative note;
excerpt from my Summary of Benefits; USPSTF Grade A recommendation
for colorectal cancer screening.

I request a written determination within 30 days as provided under
ERISA §503 and 29 CFR §2560.503-1.

Sincerely,
[PATIENT SIGNATURE]

Why this appeal succeeded

This appeal wins because the legal question is settled. Federal regulators issued explicit guidance on this exact fact pattern over a decade ago, and every major insurer's own policy language reflects it. The denial happens anyway because of a coding workflow error — and the insurer reverses it the moment someone points to the FAQ.

  • ACA §2713 / 45 CFR §147.130: Requires non-grandfathered group plans to cover USPSTF-recommended preventive services with no cost-sharing.
  • ACA Implementation FAQs Part XII, Q5 (Feb 2013): Tri-agency guidance explicitly stating that polyp removal during a screening colonoscopy is part of the preventive service and may not trigger cost-sharing.
  • USPSTF Grade A recommendation: Colorectal cancer screening for adults 45–75 — the threshold that triggers ACA preventive coverage.
  • ERISA §503 / 29 CFR §2560.503-1: Establishes the member's right to a first-level internal appeal with a written determination within 30 days.

What happened next

  1. 1
    Day 0
    EOB received and uploaded to BillHero

    Maya received her paper EOB on a Tuesday evening. She photographed it with her phone and uploaded it alongside her Anthem Summary of Benefits. The full analysis returned in 2 minutes 40 seconds.

  2. 2
    Day 1
    Appeal letter reviewed and mailed certified

    Maya proofread the drafted letter, printed it with her attached documents (referral, op note, SOB page), and mailed it certified with return receipt from her local post office.

  3. 3
    Day 4
    Appeal received by Anthem

    Return receipt confirmed delivery to the appeals P.O. box. Maya logged the tracking number in her BillHero timeline.

  4. 4
    Day 18
    Follow-up phone call

    Per the follow-up script, Maya called the member services number on the back of her card, referenced the certified mail receipt, and asked for the claim status. The representative confirmed the appeal was under review by the clinical team.

  5. 5
    Day 28
    Written determination received

    Anthem mailed a letter overturning the original determination. The claim was being reprocessed under the preventive benefit.

  6. 6
    Day 32
    Corrected EOB arrives

    The replacement EOB showed $0 patient responsibility. Maya's account balance with the provider dropped to $0 the following week.

What this case illustrates

  • 1.The denial wasn't a coverage decision — it was a coding workflow error. Insurers auto-reclassify screening colonoscopies as diagnostic when a polyp is removed, and the correction requires a member to notice and appeal. Most don't.
  • 2.The appeal worked because it cited a specific federal FAQ by number, not a vague appeal to fairness. Specificity is why BillHero's letters use allowlisted statutory references.
  • 3.Timeline discipline mattered. Certified mail established the appeal date on record; the follow-up call at day 18 kept the review moving. BillHero's follow-up script and timeline tracker exist for this exact reason.
  • 4.If you've ever had a colonoscopy billed as diagnostic after a polyp was found, pull your EOB back out. The 180-day appeal window is usually still open, and the overturn rate on this denial pattern is among the highest in insurance appeals.

Got a bill that looks wrong?

The first analysis is free. BillHero will tell you within three minutes whether there's a case to appeal.

BillHero is an educational and assistive tool only. Not legal, medical, or insurance advice. Results are not guaranteed. This case study is a demonstration — your situation and outcome may differ.