NEVVI Medicare utilization intelligence
+ Build a code basket
Market snapshot

Nationwide CY2024

Medicare Part B FFS · CY2024 · as published by CMS
72074 X-ray of middle spine, minimum of 4 views CPT · Standard X-ray imaging
Classification Imaging › Standard X-ray › X-ray - Spine and Pelvis (CMS RBCS)
First observed 2013 — start of our 12-year window; the code predates it
National scale 1,971 services ▼ 9.1% YoY · 1,856 beneficiaries (CY2024, Medicare FFS)
Medicare paid $38K · $19.48 avg / service, national
CMS descriptor · RBCS classification · Medicare Part B physician/supplier claims, 12-year window
Billing groups

25

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

1,431

Scaled from 684 observed FFS services.
FFS of Medicare

49%

Payer-mix frame
Services · year over year
Services YoY

-5.3%

All-Medicare est. · observed FFS -9.1%
Volume, not care. A shrinking fee-for-service denominator is not a shrinking market.
Estimated all-Medicare volume estimate
FFS + estimated MA

~1,431 services

684 observed fee-for-service (48%) · ~747 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 — 72074 (CY2024)
AZ 516 TX 157 FL 154 OH 140 IL 118

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
$55K
Named-group allowed amount
$15K
Named-group Medicare payments
$11K
Avg charge / svc
$80
Avg allowed / svc
$22
Avg payment / svc
$16
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
$17 25 groups · avg submitted charge / service $170
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 72074 svcs Submitted charges Avg charge Medicare $ Share of state* Phone
1 HOUSTON RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATED HOUSTON TX DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY 103 79 $6,298 $80 50.3% (281) 206-9020
2 SMI IMAGING LLC PHOENIX AZ DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY 364 56 $8,568 $153 10.9% (480) 753-6161
3 THE ORTHOPEDIC CENTERS RAINBOW CITY AL PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT 19 55 $6,509 $118 69.6% (256) 546-8127
4 FOUR CORNERS RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES PC FARMINGTON NM DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY 7 53 $3,303 $62 57.0% (505) 325-1572
5 BIO FAMILY CLINIC INC YUMA AZ NURSE PRACTITIONER 33 44 $3,102 $70 8.5% (928) 342-6500
That's the top 5 of 25 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 →