NEVVI Medicare utilization intelligence
+ Build a code basket
Market snapshot

TX CY2024

Medicare Part B FFS · CY2024 · as published by CMS
33517 Coronary artery bypass using vein or artery graft, 1 graft CPT · Cardiovascular procedure
Classification Procedure › Cardiovascular (CMS RBCS)
First observed 2013 — start of our 12-year window; the code predates it
National scale 4,101 services ▼ 5.7% YoY · 4,098 beneficiaries (CY2024, Medicare FFS)
Medicare paid $482K · $117.43 avg / service, national
CMS descriptor · RBCS classification · Medicare Part B physician/supplier claims, 12-year window · National figures — the TX market is below
Market analyticsPlatform Methods →

The structure and trend panels below are live for everyone — free to look at. The rank & score analytics, baskets, and export are the platform.

The read
What am I looking at, in one breath?
The read Platform

In Texas, 9 groups bill 33517 — 178 fee-for-service services, and volume is down 17.8% year over year.

Unlock the Platform — the full read, every number below, code baskets, and export. Looking is free; the depth is paid. Notify me at launch →

The orienting line is free; the comparative synthesis — growth rank, concentration, and $/service against the national figure — unlocks with Platform.

The snapshot
The honest, real numbers — free, always.
Billing groups

9

Named groups billing this code in TX
Named-group FFS services

178

Attributable volume · fee-for-service
FFS of Medicare

46%

Payer-mix frame
Named-group coverage

51%

Of Texas’s disclosed Part B services (2024). The rest is billed by clinicians whose volume isn’t attributed to any group — they belong to several groups, or none. How attribution works →
Services · year over year
Services YoY

-17.8%

FFS enrollment -1.5%
Volume, not care. A shrinking fee-for-service denominator is not a shrinking market.
Estimated all-Medicare volume estimate
FFS + estimated MA

~382 services

178 observed fee-for-service (47%) · ~204 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
The market
How big, moving which way, worth how much.
Billed → allowed → paid
Named-group submitted charges
$100K
Named-group allowed amount
$25K
Named-group Medicare payments
$20K
Avg charge / svc
$560
Avg allowed / svc
$142
Avg payment / svc
$114
Totals are named-group (attributable) sums. Allowed is Medicare’s fee-schedule recognized price — what CMS recognizes, before the 80% Medicare pays.
Per-service vs national + the payments trend unlock with Platform
Market trend — 12-year view
services 2013–2024
YearServices Services per 1,000 Part B FFS beneficiaries Medicare payments
2013 (introduction year) 640 0.3 $64,502
2014 564 0.3 $55,239
2015 545 0.2 $52,163
2016 490 0.2 $53,123
2017 435 0.2 $45,447
2018 372 0.2 $39,347
2019 499 0.2 $55,142
2020 (2020) 191 0.1 $21,840
2021 366 0.2 $39,083
2022 373 0.2 $39,075
2023 259 0.1 $30,562
2024 213 0.1 $25,364

CAGR 2014–2024: -9.3%/yr · CAGR excludes 2020 and the introduction year.

Rates are per 1,000 Part B fee-for-service beneficiaries in the market's geography. See Methods.

The structure
Who's in this market and how it's shaped.
Average charge per group
$112 9 groups · avg submitted charge / service $1,534
Market structure

Concentration is not shown for markets under 11 billing groups.

Of volume attributable to named groups, independents account for 0%; hospital-affiliated 100%.

Disclosed setting mix: 0% office · 100% facility.

HHI trend: 2021: 1,058 · 2022: 861 · 2023: 904 · (group rosters begin 2019)

Provider-setting count 2013 → 2024: 39 → 16 (-59%).

Named groups cover 84% of disclosed volume. CMS suppresses provider-code rows under 11 beneficiaries at the source; suppressed volume is excluded and cannot be estimated from this file. Volume shares describe the volume attributable to named groups; the coverage line above states how much of disclosed Medicare fee-for-service volume that is.

Market position

Where this market sits on volume and growth among all state markets, and its rank.

National benchmarks

Where each group's volume sits nationally and within its specialty.

The opportunity
So where do I act?
Worth a look

Every state market for this search, ranked by a published score: size, growth, fragmentation, below-expected volume. The cross-market compare view sits alongside.

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 →
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 Specialty Providers 33517 svcs Submitted charges Avg charge Medicare $ Share* Phone
1 ETMC PHYSICIAN GROUP, INC. TYLER NURSE PRACTITIONER 373 29 $7,721 $266 13.6% (903) 590-5611
2 CHRISTUS TRINITY CLINIC TYLER NURSE PRACTITIONER 1495 26 $15,964 $614 12.2% (903) 606-5560
3 NORTH TEXAS HEART SURGERY CENTER, PLLC DALLAS PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT 15 25 $15,372 $615 11.7% (972) 566-4866
4 PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT SERVICES OF TEXAS L.L.P FORT WORTH PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT 15 24 $2,700 $112 11.3% (817) 336-2100
5 HEALTHTEXAS PROVIDER NETWORK DALLAS PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT 2482 22 $15,519 $705 10.3% —
That's the top 5 of 9 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 →