NEVVI Medicare utilization intelligence
+ Build a code basket
Market snapshot

Nationwide CY2024

Medicare Part B FFS · CY2024 · as published by CMS
87625 Detection test by nucleic acid for human papillomavirus (hpv), types 16 and 18 only CPT · Molecular Testing
Classification Test › Molecular Testing › Infectious Agent Detection by DNA/RNA (CMS RBCS)
First observed 2015
National scale 29,648 services ▲ 20.5% YoY · 26,417 beneficiaries (CY2024, Medicare FFS)
Medicare paid $1.2M · $39.71 avg / service, national
CMS descriptor · RBCS classification · Medicare Part B physician/supplier claims, 12-year window
Billing groups

20

Named groups billing this code
Named-group FFS services

1,432

Attributable volume · fee-for-service
FFS of Medicare

49%

Payer-mix frame
Services · year over year
Services YoY

+20.5%

FFS enrollment -2.2%
Volume, not care. A shrinking fee-for-service denominator is not a shrinking market.
Estimated all-Medicare volume estimate
FFS + estimated MA

~3,052 services

1,432 observed fee-for-service (47%) · ~1,620 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 — 87625 (CY2024)
PA 16,306 FL 2,346 NJ 1,679 CA 1,290 TX 1,119

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
$168K
Named-group allowed amount
$57K
Named-group Medicare payments
$57K
Avg charge / svc
$117
Avg allowed / svc
$40
Avg payment / svc
$40
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
$45 20 groups · avg submitted charge / service $180
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 87625 svcs Submitted charges Avg charge Medicare $ Share* Phone
1 ASSOCIATED PATHOLOGISTS, LLC NASHVILLE TN PATHOLOGY 135 303 $33,330 $110 76.9% (615) 221-4400
2 FLORIDA WOMAN CARE LLC ORLANDO FL OBSTETRICS/GYNECOLOGY 604 178 $21,716 $122 7.6% (407) 857-2502
3 UWH OF THE CAROLINAS PLLC WINSTON SALEM NC OBSTETRICS/GYNECOLOGY 328 110 $13,420 $122 19.7% (336) 768-3632
4 VITALMD GROUP HOLDING LLC MIAMI FL OBSTETRICS/GYNECOLOGY 531 108 $13,128 $122 4.6% (305) 273-4641
5 PACIFIC PATHOLOGY MEDICAL ASSOCIATES SAN FRANCISCO CA PATHOLOGY 5 107 $10,165 $95 8.3% (415) 668-1000
That's the top 5 of 20 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 →