Hammer Labs HL-CVG-001
CHECKED 2026-09-08 POLICIES 2026-09-03 COMMENTS 2026-09-04
3 open now 7591 comments on record 339 closed periods +0 new policies 22 revised extract 5d old · 2026-08-27→2026-09-03

What this is

Medicare coverage, and the one window where it can be argued

Medicare does not decide what it pays for in one place. Three kinds of document do it, they open to argument at different moments, and the one most likely to name your code never opens at all.

National decision NCD
Made once, in Washington, and binding on the whole country. There are 357 of them and most were settled decades ago. If one covers your question it is the answer, and a local contractor cannot override it. These carry their own statutory comment process when CMS opens a national coverage analysis, which is a different and rarer moment than the local windows this site tracks.
Local policy LCD
Medicare does not pay claims itself. It hires private companies, called contractors, to pay them region by region, and each one writes its own rules about what it will pay for and under what conditions. There are 858 of these in force, written by eight Medicare Administrative Contractors. This is where most coverage is actually decided, and it is why the same test can be paid in one state and refused in another.
Billing article
The attachment that names the actual codes and diagnoses a policy applies to. When you look up a code, this is usually what names it, and it is the one document here with no comment period at all. Coding and payment questions are also outside what 42 CFR 426.325 allows anyone to appeal afterwards, so an article is argued only indirectly, through the policy it hangs from.

Before a local policy takes effect, the contractor has to publish it as a draft and take comments for about 45 days. Anyone can write in. The contractor then has to publish every comment it received and its own written answer to each one, in public.

That published back-and-forth is what this site collects: 7591 comments across 814 comment periods, each with what the contractor said back and whether it changed anything. 3768 of them sit in the 339 periods where CMS recorded a closing date; on the other 3823 it published the comments and left the date blank.

The window is the widest opening. Once it closes your route under 42 CFR 426 closes with it: there, only a Medicare beneficiary who needs the service, or their estate, with their treating physician’s documentation, may challenge the policy. A manufacturer, a hospital or a society cannot. A separate mechanism, LCD reconsideration, does remain open to interested parties; it is slower and narrower than commenting, and it is not the subject of this site.

How to use it

four steps
  1. Start with a code. On Look up a code, type the code you bill, or just a word from the policy: "oxygen", "cardiac". You do not need to know the number.
  2. See if it is open. If a draft names your code, you get the deadline and the exact criteria the contractor is proposing, quoted.
  3. Read what worked before. The record searches every published comment and the contractor's reply. Search the argument, not just the code: "medical necessity", "frequency".
  4. Hand it to an agent. Any result becomes a corpus with a short id. Paste that to an agent running the Hammer plugin and it pulls the rows, the vintage they came from and the query that selected them, so the claim can be re-run and cited months later.
Free, and not a paid service. Everything here is republished from the CMS Medicare Coverage Database with a link back to the source on every passage.

Open for comment now

CMS 2026-09-03 · checked 2026-09-08

3 drafts are accepting comment, naming 10 distinct codes between them. The nearest shuts in 33 days.

Codes in play — pick one

The number counts comments whose text contains the code itself. Only 478 of the 7591 comments name any code at all, because people argue about a policy rather than about a numeral, so no number here means nobody typed it and not that nobody argued. Search the policy name on the record to find those.

MolDX: Genome-Wide Molecular Methodologies for the Detection of Copy Number Alterations and Structural Variants in Hematologic Neoplasms

Cite this as DL40406, DL40410, DL40430. The contractor is asking about the draft, not about the policy it would replace.

33 days left closes 2026-10-11 CGS Administrators / Noridian Healthcare Solutions / Palmetto GBA DL40406revises L40407 DL40410revises L40411 DL40430revises L40431
A new policy, not a revision. It replaces nothing, so all 23 of its sentences are new and every one is open to comment.

CMS publishes no diff. This one splits both documents into sentences and matches them on their letters and digits, so renumbering does not read as change. A REWORDED sentence appears in both lists, once removed and once added, which is the right reading here: the wording moved, and wording is what a comment argues about.

Requirements this draft states
prior test required ×2 frequency cap population limit evidence bar ×2 documentation ×1
documentation diagnosis in accordance with current expert or professional guidelines (e.g., World Health Organization Classification of Haematolymphoid Tumours (WHO), International Consensus Classification of Myeloid and Lymphoid Neoplasms (ICC)), and other reasonably possible causes have been considered and excluded, as documented in the medical record;
prior test required Testing for CNAs and SVs has not already been performed and is not in the process of being performed by another genome-wide molecular methodology or by multiple (>1) other chromosomal and/or molecular methodologies (e.g., chromosome banding analysis, CBA;
prior test required The patient previously had an oncologic workup for the same indication utilizing standard chromosomal/molecular assays (as above) that was negative, and presents with further signs or symptoms (e.g., worsening blood counts) suggestive of malignancy or progression of malignancy in accordance with expert or professional guidelines (as above) and as documented in the medical record.
evidence bar The test has satisfactorily completed a Technical Assessment (TA) by the Molecular Diagnostic Services Program (MolDX ® ) to ensure analytical validity (AV), clinical validity (CV) and clinical utility (CU) standards are met.
evidence bar The test demonstrates detection accuracy for targeted analytes comparable or superior to current gold standards for testing.

names 6 codes: 0299U 0300U 0331U 0413U 81195 81479

MolDX: Next-Generation Sequencing for Hematologic Malignancies and Suspected Hematologic Malignancies

Cite this as DL40424, DL40426, DL40450. The contractor is asking about the draft, not about the policy it would replace.

33 days left closes 2026-10-11 CGS Administrators / Noridian Healthcare Solutions / Palmetto GBA DL40424revises L40425 DL40426revises L40427 DL40450revises L40451
A new policy, not a revision. It replaces nothing, so all 16 of its sentences are new and every one is open to comment.

CMS publishes no diff. This one splits both documents into sentences and matches them on their letters and digits, so renumbering does not read as change. A REWORDED sentence appears in both lists, once removed and once added, which is the right reading here: the wording moved, and wording is what a comment argues about.

Requirements this draft states
prior test required frequency cap population limit evidence bar ×2 documentation ×1
documentation an undiagnosed but highly suspected hematologic malignancy in accordance with current national or international consensus guidelines (as above), AND a standard evaluation to rule out benign or reactive causes (e.g., infectious, inflammatory etiology) has been performed, as documented in the medical record.
evidence bar Because these genes and variants will change as the literature and drug indications evolve, they are listed separately in associated documents such as the MolDX ® Technical Assessment (TA) forms.
evidence bar The test has completed a Technical Assessment (TA) by MolDX ® to verify that analytical validity (AV), clinical validity (CV), and clinical utility (CU) standards are met for the stated indications of the test.

names 5 codes: 81450 81451 81455 81456 81479

MolDX: Transcriptional Biomarkers for Therapeutic Decision-Making in Renal Carcinoma

Cite this as DL40428, DL40432, DL40434. The contractor is asking about the draft, not about the policy it would replace.

33 days left closes 2026-10-11 CGS Administrators / Noridian Healthcare Solutions / Palmetto GBA DL40428revises L40429 DL40432revises L40433 DL40434revises L40435
A new policy, not a revision. It replaces nothing, so all 16 of its sentences are new and every one is open to comment.

CMS publishes no diff. This one splits both documents into sentences and matches them on their letters and digits, so renumbering does not read as change. A REWORDED sentence appears in both lists, once removed and once added, which is the right reading here: the wording moved, and wording is what a comment argues about.

Requirements this draft states
prior test required frequency cap population limit ×1 evidence bar ×3 documentation
evidence bar If the test relies on an algorithm, the algorithm must be validated in a cohort that is not a development cohort for the algorithm.
evidence bar The analytes measured have demonstrated clinical validity and clinical utility in the peer-reviewed published literature, establishing a clear and significant biological basis for stratifying patients and subsequently selecting (either positively or negatively) their clinical management decision within a clearly defined population.
evidence bar Analytical validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility are assessed as part of a successful technical assessment (TA) by the Molecular Diagnostic Services Program (MolDX ® ).
population limit Diagnostic tests using next-generation sequencing (NGS) for tumor mutation profiling are not within scope of this policy and are governed according to the criteria in LCD L38045, MolDX:

Local coverage — LCDs

one contractor’s jurisdiction each
858active
102proposed
116retired
142contractor numbers
858 active 102 proposed 116 retired
Of the 102 proposed, 9 still have a comment window open; the rest are drafts whose window has already shut. The contractor figure counts contractor NUMBERS in the CMS database, not companies: eight Medicare Administrative Contractors appear here under 142 of them.

National coverage — NCDs

binding in every jurisdiction
357on the books
171flagged under review
8benefit categories shown
171 under review 186 settled
An NCD overrides every LCD on the same question, so a national decision can settle an argument no local comment could. The review figure is CMS’s own under_rvw flag in the NCD tracking file, reported as published. It is not a count of open national coverage analyses and should not be read as one.

Billing detail — articles

where the codes actually live
2270articles
1961active
822are responses to comments
The response-to-comments articles are the record this site searches: every published comment with the contractor’s written reply beneath it.

When today’s active LCDs took effect

2016 onward, by first effective date
30 2016 46 2017 30 2018 45 2019 67 2020 58 2021 33 2022 44 2023 43 2024 24 2025 42 2026
First effective date, so a policy revised many times still counts once, in the year it began.

When national decisions were made

NCDs by decade of effect
75 1970s 30 1980s 22 1990s 68 2000s 75 2010s 85 2020s 2 2030s
Most of what binds nationally today was decided decades ago and never revisited — which is why the argument moved local.

What national coverage is about

NCDs per benefit category, top 8
Benefit categoryNCDs
Physicians' Services 125
Diagnostic Tests (other) 82
Inpatient Hospital Services 61
Incident to a physician's professional Service 41
Diagnostic Laboratory Tests 34
Outpatient Hospital Services Incident to a Physician's Service 34
Durable Medical Equipment 29
Prosthetic Devices 24
One NCD can sit in several categories, so these sum to more than the 357 decisions on the books.

Since 2026-08-27

to 2026-09-03
0 new policies
22 revised
0 codes gained links
CMS rebuilds its database in place with no changelog. These differences exist only because both vintages were kept.

Codes that just gained policy links

newest first

Nothing moved between these two vintages.

A code gaining a link means some policy now names it that did not before. That is a fact about the database, not a decision about coverage.