NEVVI Medicare utilization intelligence
+ Build a code basket
Market snapshot

Nationwide CY2024

Medicare Part B FFS · CY2024 · as published by CMS
64905 Transfer of nerve to injured nerve, stage 1 of 2 CPT · Musculoskeletal procedure
Classification Procedure › Musculoskeletal (CMS RBCS)
First observed 2016
National scale 321 services ▲ 21.1% YoY · 140 beneficiaries (CY2024, Medicare FFS)
Medicare paid $163K · $508.28 avg / service, national
CMS descriptor · RBCS classification · Medicare Part B physician/supplier claims, 12-year window
Billing groups

6

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

486

Scaled from 248 observed FFS services.
FFS of Medicare

49%

Payer-mix frame
Services · year over year
Services YoY

+24.5%

All-Medicare est. · observed FFS +21.1%
Volume, not care. A shrinking fee-for-service denominator is not a shrinking market.
Estimated all-Medicare volume estimate
FFS + estimated MA

~486 services

248 observed fee-for-service (51%) · ~238 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 — 64905 (CY2024)
CA 70 DC 67 OH 62 AZ 54 MO 41

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
$725K
Named-group allowed amount
$143K
Named-group Medicare payments
$115K
Avg charge / svc
$2,925
Avg allowed / svc
$578
Avg payment / svc
$462
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
$876 6 groups · avg submitted charge / service $5,327
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 64905 svcs Submitted charges Avg charge Medicare $ Share of state* Phone
1 CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER WEST HOLLYWOOD CA NURSE PRACTITIONER 802 70 $250,285 $3,576 100.0% (310) 423-3277
2 BANNER - UNIVERSITY PHYSICIAN SPECIALISTS LLC PHOENIX AZ PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT 349 54 $85,889 $1,591 100.0% (602) 839-3927
3 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SAINT LOUIS MO NURSE PRACTITIONER 3070 41 $35,896 $876 100.0% (314) 747-3000
4 OSU PLASTIC SURGERY LLC COLUMBUS OH PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT 42 30 $138,465 $4,616 48.4% (614) 293-8566
5 MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL PHYSICIANS ORGANIZATION INC BOSTON MA DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY 3532 27 $143,829 $5,327 100.0% (617) 724-0287
That's the top 5 of 6 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 →