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

Who bills the most Injection, pegcetacoplan, intravitreal, 1 mg (J2781) to Medicare in Texas?

Medicare Part B FFS · CY2024 · as published by CMS
17
Billing groups
117,770
Named-group FFS services
$37,669,071
Named-group submitted charges
$320
Avg charge / service
$147
Avg allowed / service
77%
Top-5 concentration
2%
Independent share

17 physician groups billed Injection, pegcetacoplan, intravitreal, 1 mg (J2781) to Medicare fee-for-service in Texas in 2024; the top five named groups hold 77% of that volume, and independent (non-hospital-affiliated) groups deliver 2%.

J2781 — Injection, pegcetacoplan, intravitreal, 1 mg · Source: CMS Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners PUF (Part B), CY2024 release. Medicare fee-for-service only.

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

Payer-mix context

Medicare fee-for-service covers 46% of Medicare in Texas; Medicare Advantage penetration 43% → 54% 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 J2781 svcs Share*Phone
1 AUSTIN RETINA ASSOCIATES PLLC AUSTINTXOPHTHALMOLOGY 19 30,450 14.3% (512) 451-0103
2 TEXAS RETINA ASSOCIATES DALLASTXOPHTHALMOLOGY 18 25,520 12.0% (214) 692-6941
3 NEW VISION EYE CENTER, LLC VERO BEACHTXOPHTHALMOLOGY 7 15,811 7.4% (772) 257-8700
4 HARSHI BAINS MD PA TYLERTXOPHTHALMOLOGY 4 11,404 5.4% (903) 597-4644
5 OPHTHALMOLOGY SPECIALISTS OF TEXAS PLLC WILLOW PARKTXOPHTHALMOLOGY 6 8,085 3.8% (817) 594-0914
6 JAWAD A QURESHI MD PA SOUTHLAKETXOPHTHALMOLOGY 7 7,376 3.5% (817) 865-6800
7 1960 EYE SURGEONS, P.A. HOUSTONTXOPHTHALMOLOGY 6 5,405 2.5% (281) 890-1784
8 SOUTHWEST RETINA CONSULTANTS PA EL PASOTXOPHTHALMOLOGY 7 3,780 1.8% (915) 532-3912
9 RICHARD B CULBERT MD PA MIDLANDTXOPHTHALMOLOGY 3 1,785 0.8% (432) 563-0655
10 PANHANDLE EYE GROUP, LLP AMARILLOTXOPHTHALMOLOGY 11 1,366 0.6% (806) 351-1870
11 TEXOMA RETINA CENTER PA SHERMANTXOPHTHALMOLOGY 2 1,335 0.6%
12 OPHTHALMOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF SAN ANTONIO SAN ANTONIOTXOPHTHALMOLOGY 6 1,200 0.6% (210) 223-5561
13 HEA CLINIC PA HOUSTONTXOPHTHALMOLOGY 42 1,185 0.6% (713) 467-6474
14 VISALIA EYE CENTER INC VISALIATXOPHTHALMOLOGY 3 1,125 0.5% (559) 733-4372
15 ROBERT E. TORTI, MD, PA DESOTOTXOPHTHALMOLOGY 5 1,065 0.5% (972) 283-1516
16 ASSOCIATED RETINAL CONSULTANTS LLC TEANECKTXOPHTHALMOLOGY 115 840 0.4% (201) 837-7300
17 TEXAS HEALTH CARE PLLC FORT WORTHTXNURSE PRACTITIONER 364 38 0.0% (817) 920-0484

*Share of Texas's disclosed Medicare-FFS services for J2781, counted once per clinician. Volume is placed in the state it was billed from, so this page ranks the groups actually billing J2781 in Texas — 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 →