Medicare procedure market data by CPT code & state

+ Build a code basket

Market snapshot

Nationwide CY2024

Medicare Part B FFS · CY2024 · as published by CMS

87076 Bacterial culture for anaerobic isolates CPT · General Laboratory test

Classification Test › General Laboratory › Bacterial Culture (CMS RBCS)

First observed 2013 — start of our 12-year window; the code predates it

National scale 25,983 services ▼ 3.9% YoY · 22,238 beneficiaries (CY2024, Medicare FFS)

Medicare paid $206K · $7.91 avg / service, national

CMS descriptor · RBCS classification · Medicare Part B physician/supplier claims, 12-year window

Billing groups

Named-group FFS services

FFS of Medicare

49%

Services YoY

-3.9%

FFS enrollment -2.2%

Estimated all-Medicare volume FFS + estimated MA estimate

~102 services

51 observed fee-for-service (50%) · ~51 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 — 87076 (CY2024)

FL 4,269 CA 3,943 NJ 3,080 TX 2,340 NC 1,307

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

Named-group submitted charges

$2K

Named-group allowed amount

$404

Named-group Medicare payments

$404

Avg charge / svc

$43

Avg allowed / svc

Avg payment / svc

Average charge per group

$25–29

$29–32

$32–36

$36–39

$39–43

$43–46

$46–50

$50+

$25 2 groups · avg submitted charge / service $55

Market analyticsPlatform

a taste of the twelve-year trend layer

Market position — where this market sits on volume and growth among all state markets, and its rank.
Worth a look — every state market for this search, ranked by a published score: size, growth, fragmentation, below-expected volume.
Lookalike opportunities — groups billing below what peers of the same specialty, size, and state predict, with the expected figure shown.
National benchmarks — where each group's volume sits nationally and within its specialty.
Market structure — how concentrated this market is, and who owns the volume.
Medicare-wide scaling — the payer split, and this market total scaled to all of Medicare, labeled as an estimate.

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 →

Data year: CY2024 CY2023 CY2022 CY2021 CY2020

Physician groups ranked by 87076 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	87076 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	SUTTER BAY MEDICAL FOUNDATION	PALO ALTO	CA	INTERNAL MEDICINE	3716	30	$1,650	$55	premium	0.8%	(415) 600-1020
2	MICHIANA GASTROENTEROLOGY, INC	SOUTH BEND	IN	INTERNAL MEDICINE	12	21	$525	$25	premium	11.1%	(574) 234-0049

*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 →