NEVVI Medicare utilization intelligence
+ Build a code basket
Medicare Alabama · CY2024

Who bills the most Injection, ondansetron hydrochloride, per 1 mg (J2405) to Medicare in Alabama?

Medicare Part B FFS · CY2024 · as published by CMS
15
Billing groups
28,411
Named-group FFS services
$71,850
Named-group submitted charges
$3
Avg charge / service
$0
Avg allowed / service
89%
Top-5 concentration
0%
Independent share

15 physician groups billed Injection, ondansetron hydrochloride, per 1 mg (J2405) to Medicare fee-for-service in Alabama in 2024; the top five named groups hold 89% of that volume, and independent (non-hospital-affiliated) groups deliver 0%.

J2405 — Injection, ondansetron hydrochloride, per 1 mg · Source: CMS Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners PUF (Part B), CY2024 release. Medicare fee-for-service only.

Snapshot covers the whole Alabama market — the table below shows the top 100 groups (free tier).

Payer-mix context

Medicare fee-for-service covers 40% of Medicare in Alabama; Medicare Advantage penetration 46% → 60% since 2020.

Market structure — concentration, independent share, and the consolidation trend for this market — is part of the market analytics platform — built, not launched yet. Notify me at launch →
#Physician groupCityStSpecialty Providers J2405 svcs Share*Phone
1 DOTHAN HEMATOLOGY AND ONCOLOGY, P. C. DOTHANALNURSE PRACTITIONER 15 10,824 29.7% (334) 792-9500
2 SOUTHERN CANCER CENTER PC MOBILEALMEDICAL ONCOLOGY 25 7,044 19.3% (251) 625-6896
3 ALABAMA CANCER CARE, LLC FORT PAYNEALNURSE PRACTITIONER 20 3,664 10.0% (256) 547-0536
4 HEMATOLOGY AND ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF ALABAMA LLC BIRMINGHAMALNURSE PRACTITIONER 11 2,048 5.6% (205) 502-4700
5 SOUTHERN HEMATOLOGY ONCOLOGY PC BIRMINGHAMALHEMATOLOGY/ONCOLOGY 2 1,722 4.7% (205) 877-2888
6 BIRMINGHAM HEMATOLOGY ONCOLOGY ASSOC LLC BIRMINGHAMALMEDICAL ONCOLOGY 31 932 2.6% (205) 592-5077
7 COOKEVILLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER COOKEVILLEALPSYCHIATRY 58 784 2.2% (931) 783-2497
8 SOUTHEAST PHYSICIAN NETWORK, P.C. TUSCALOOSAALNURSE PRACTITIONER 45 336 0.9% (205) 345-8208
9 IMC-DIAGNOSTIC AND MEDICAL CLINIC LLC MOBILEALINTERNAL MEDICINE 167 312 0.9%
10 ONCOLOGY SPECIALTIES, P.C. HUNTSVILLEALNURSE PRACTITIONER 93 284 0.8% (256) 705-4224
11 GREG E EUDY MD PC BIRMINGHAMALNURSE PRACTITIONER 3 200 0.5% (205) 263-0093
12 KEEL AND ASSOCIATES OXFORDALGENERAL PRACTICE 2 89 0.2% 2568354756120
13 URGENT CARE NORTHWEST PC JASPERALNURSE PRACTITIONER 14 88 0.2% (205) 387-2253
14 TUSCALOOSA MEDCENTER NORTH, LLC NORTHPORTALNURSE PRACTITIONER 26 60 0.2% (205) 333-1993
15 SOUTHERN PAIN SPECIALISTS, P.C. BIRMINGHAMALCERTIFIED REGISTERED NURSE ANESTHETIST (CRNA) 2 24 0.1% (205) 995-9967

*Share of Alabama's disclosed Medicare-FFS services for J2405, counted once per clinician. Volume is placed in the state it was billed from, so this page ranks the groups actually billing J2405 in Alabama — including groups registered elsewhere ("City" is each 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.

How to read this. Figures are Medicare fee-for-service only — not all-payer — from the CMS Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners Public Use File (Part B), CY2024 release. CMS suppresses any provider×code row under 11 beneficiaries, so a missing group means "suppressed," never zero. "Charges" are provider-submitted amounts, not payments. Groups are ranked by measured service volume attributed to clinicians in exactly one group — clinicians affiliated with several groups are listed in rosters but never volume-attributed to a single group — a direct read of the public record, not a rating or quality score. Full method: Methods & Sources.

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 →