~927 services
446 observed fee-for-service (48%) · ~481 estimated Medicare Advantage.
$24K
0.0
14
Est. all-Medicare services by billing state (scaled estimate — assumes MA utilization mirrors FFS); open a bar for that state's ranked market. Average submitted charge / service by billing state, among the highest-volume states; open a bar for that state's ranked market.
Growing on the honest basis across 12 years
Half the field lists between $217 and $519
Computed for this market — a Platform view
Computed for this market — a Platform view
Computed for this market — a Platform view
See it in full: nuclear heart imaging (78452) in Arizona is open as a live example — every paid panel, on real data.
View the live example →sorts locked on the free tier · services rank pinned · refine and export are Platform features
You are at the seam — 5 of 14 groups named.
Medicare $ counts 92313 payments in the market each row names, CY2024; avg list is that row's submitted charges per service on the same basis — list amounts, not payments.
*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 — and the observed foundation every market figure here builds on. Market totals anchor on a labeled all-Medicare estimate scaled from that foundation, with the observed count disclosed beside it — Medicare only, never all-payer. Modeled all-payer databases project every payer statistically and typically run higher. Same market, different denominator. How the numbers reconcile →