NEVVI Medicare utilization intelligence
+ Build a code basket
Market snapshot

Nationwide CY2024

Medicare Part B FFS · CY2024 · as published by CMS
0671T Insertion of drainage device into drainage tissue within eye (trabecular meshwork) HCPCS · Eye procedure
Classification Procedure › Eye (CMS RBCS)
First observed 2023
National scale 1,757 services ▲ 1079.2% YoY · 1,395 beneficiaries (CY2024, Medicare FFS)
Medicare paid $3.3M · $1886.14 avg / service, national
CMS descriptor · RBCS classification · Medicare Part B physician/supplier claims, 12-year window
Billing groups

22

Named groups billing this code
Named-group all-Medicare svcs · est.

1,051

Scaled from 522 observed FFS services.
FFS of Medicare

49%

Payer-mix frame
Services · year over year
Services YoY

+1040.1%

All-Medicare est. · observed FFS +1079.2%
Volume, not care. A shrinking fee-for-service denominator is not a shrinking market.
Estimated all-Medicare volume estimate
FFS + estimated MA

~1,051 services

522 observed fee-for-service (50%) · ~529 estimated Medicare Advantage.

Scaled from the observed floor by each state’s fee-for-service share (FFS share as of 2024) — scaled estimate — assumes MA utilization mirrors FFS; not an observation. How we scale
Top states — 0671T (CY2024)
CA 477 TX 308 FL 171 WA 130 NJ 106

Disclosed Medicare fee-for-service services by billing state; open a bar for that state's ranked market.

Billed → allowed → paid
Named-group submitted charges
$1.3M
Named-group allowed amount
$459K
Named-group Medicare payments
$366K
Avg charge / svc
$2,528
Avg allowed / svc
$880
Avg payment / svc
$701
Totals are named-group (attributable) sums. Allowed is Medicare’s fee-schedule recognized price — what CMS recognizes, before the 80% Medicare pays.
Average charge per group
$1,250 22 groups · avg submitted charge / service $9,610
Market analyticsPlatform Methods →

Search a single state to see that market's full analytics — the free tier previews every panel, gated.

Or just look at it: nuclear heart imaging (78452) in Arizona is open as a live example — the full paid view, real data.

View the live example →
Unlock the Platform — the full read, every number below, code baskets, and export. Looking is free; the depth is paid. Notify me at launch →
Refine: group size any 5+ 25+ 100+ independent only
Filter results:

Email me this CSV

Data year: CY2024 CY2023 CY2022  CY2021  CY2020 
# Physician group City St Specialty Providers 0671T svcs Submitted charges Avg charge Medicare $ Share of state* Phone
1 OKLAHOMA EYE SURGEONS PLLC OKLAHOMA CITY OK OPTOMETRY 3 62 $93,000 $1,500 100.0% (405) 943-4413
2 EYE CONSULTANTS OF PENNSYLVANIA PC WYOMISSING PA OPHTHALMOLOGY 25 37 $74,000 $2,000 53.6% (610) 378-1344
3 DAN B TRAN MEDICAL CORPORATION ORANGE CA OPTOMETRY 11 36 $54,000 $1,500 7.5% (714) 771-1213
4 EL PASO EYE SURGEONS, P.A. EL PASO TX OPHTHALMOLOGY 2 29 $72,500 $2,500 9.4% (915) 542-0279
5 WSK EYE ASSOCIATES PA LEWISVILLE TX OPHTHALMOLOGY 5 24 $54,000 $2,250 7.8% (972) 436-5040
That's the top 5 of 22 groups. The platform ranks the whole market — code baskets, benchmarks, and the full ranked list. the full ranking is part of the market analytics platform — built, not launched yet. Notify me at launch →

*Share of the state's disclosed Medicare-FFS services for the primary code, counted once per clinician. "St" is the state the volume was billed from: a group appears in each state where its clinicians bill Medicare, with that state's volume and share ("City" is the group's registered location). Group figures sum clinicians affiliated with exactly one group; clinicians in several groups are listed in each group's drill-down but not volume-attributed to any single group, so shares reflect attributable volume. See Methods.

Comparing against an all-payer estimate?

These are exact counts from Medicare fee-for-service claims — roughly a third to half of most procedure markets, depending on payer mix. Modeled all-payer databases project the remainder statistically; we publish the audited floor and label it as such. Same market, different denominator. How the numbers reconcile →