NEVVI Medicare utilization intelligence
+ Build a code basket
Market snapshot

Nationwide CY2024

Medicare Part B FFS · CY2024 · as published by CMS
84580 Urobilinogen (metabolism substance) level, urine CPT · General Laboratory test
Classification Test General Laboratory Clinical Chemistry (CMS RBCS)
First observed 2022
National scale 15,859 services ▲ 57.3% YoY · 10,908 beneficiaries (CY2024, Medicare FFS)
Medicare paid $148K · $9.33 avg / service, national
CMS descriptor · RBCS classification · Medicare Part B physician/supplier claims, 12-year window
Billing groups
7
Named-group FFS services
10,006
FFS of Medicare
49%
Services YoY
+57.3%
FFS enrollment -2.2%
Estimated all-Medicare volume FFS + estimated MA estimate
~21,301 services

10,006 observed fee-for-service (47%) · ~11,295 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 — 84580 (CY2024)

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

Named-group submitted charges
$179K
Named-group allowed amount
$93K
Named-group Medicare payments
$93K
Avg charge / svc
$18
Avg allowed / svc
$9
Avg payment / svc
$9
Average charge per group
$10 7 groups · avg submitted charge / service $29
Market analyticsPlatform
a taste of the twelve-year trend layer

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 →

Nevvi's market analytics platform — code baskets, market structure and share, the twelve-year trend layer — is built and not launched yet. We're gathering interest in it.

Notify me at launch →
Refine: practice size any 5+ 25+ 100+ independent only
Filter results:

Email me this CSV

Data year: CY2024 CY2023 CY2022 locked column CY2021 locked column CY2020 locked column
Physician groups ranked by 84580 services, highest first, CY2024
# Physician group activate to sort City activate to sort St activate to sort Specialty activate to sort Providers activate to sort 84580 svcs sorted descending — activate to reverse Submitted charges activate to sort Avg charge activate to sort Medicare $ locked column Share* activate to sort Phone
1 PHOENIX UROLOGY OF ST JOSEPH INC SAINT JOSEPH MO UROLOGY 5 2,376 $52,272 $22 premium 42.4% (816) 232-8877
2 CLINICAL UROLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C. GADSDEN AL UROLOGY 11 2,124 $20,284 $10 premium 100.0% (256) 492-4040
3 FORE RIVER UROLOGY LLC SOUTH PORTLAND ME UROLOGY 9 1,949 $29,235 $15 premium 100.0% (207) 518-6617
4 UROLOGY ASSOCIATES OF DELAWARE PA DOVER DE UROLOGY 7 1,467 $42,543 $29 premium 100.0% 3027361320103
5 CONRAD PEARSON CLINIC PC SOUTHAVEN TN UROLOGY 21 1,024 $15,360 $15 premium 86.1% (662) 349-1964
6 UROLOGY ASSOCIATES OF SOUTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA PA WILMINGTON NC UROLOGY 9 339 $9,712 $29 premium 100.0% (910) 763-6251
7 CENLA UROLOGY CLINIC LLC ALEXANDRIA LA NURSE PRACTITIONER 6 308 $3,080 $10 premium 41.6% (318) 442-3384
8 FORE RIVER UROLOGY LLC SOUTH PORTLAND MA UROLOGY 9 248 $3,720 $15 premium 51.2% (207) 518-6617
9 CONRAD PEARSON CLINIC PC SOUTHAVEN MS UROLOGY 21 171 $2,565 $15 premium 100.0% (662) 349-1964

*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 →