NEVVI Medicare utilization intelligence
+ Build a code basket
Market snapshot

Nationwide CY2024

Medicare Part B FFS · CY2024 · as published by CMS
50325 Preparation of living donor kidney for transplantation CPT · Other Organ Systems procedure
Classification Procedure › Other Organ Systems (CMS RBCS)
First observed 2013 — start of our 12-year window; the code predates it
National scale 325 services ▼ 9.0% YoY · 318 beneficiaries (CY2024, Medicare FFS)
Medicare paid $26K · $79.80 avg / service, national
CMS descriptor · RBCS classification · Medicare Part B physician/supplier claims, 12-year window
Billing groups

10

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

359

Scaled from 176 observed FFS services.
FFS of Medicare

49%

Payer-mix frame
Services · year over year
Services YoY

-6.0%

All-Medicare est. · observed FFS -9.0%
Volume, not care. A shrinking fee-for-service denominator is not a shrinking market.
Estimated all-Medicare volume estimate
FFS + estimated MA

~359 services

176 observed fee-for-service (49%) · ~183 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 — 50325 (CY2024)
TX 55 PA 49 CA 42 AZ 31 GA 30

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
$340K
Named-group allowed amount
$16K
Named-group Medicare payments
$13K
Avg charge / svc
$1,931
Avg allowed / svc
$93
Avg payment / svc
$76
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
$685 10 groups · avg submitted charge / service $6,435
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 50325 svcs Submitted charges Avg charge Medicare $ Share of state* Phone
1 MAYO CLINIC ARIZONA PHOENIX AZ PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT 1635 31 $45,500 $1,468 100.0% (800) 603-0558
2 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES CA UROLOGY 48 31 $33,914 $1,094 73.8% (310) 794-8492
3 MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER MN NURSE PRACTITIONER 4896 26 $44,863 $1,726 100.0% (507) 284-2511
4 THE EMORY CLINIC INC ATLANTA GA NURSE PRACTITIONER 3484 16 $22,339 $1,396 53.3% (404) 778-7525
5 WEILL MEDICAL COLLEGE OF CORNELL NEW YORK NY INTERNAL MEDICINE 2053 16 $102,960 $6,435 59.3% (212) 746-5454
That's the top 5 of 10 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 →