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

Who bills the most Membrane graft or membrane wrap, per square centimeter (Q4205) to Medicare in Texas?

Medicare Part B FFS · CY2024 · as published by CMS
15
Billing groups
31,761
Named-group FFS services
$45,043,533
Named-group submitted charges
$1,418
Avg charge / service
$1,284
Avg allowed / service
72%
Top-5 concentration
11%
Independent share

15 physician groups billed Membrane graft or membrane wrap, per square centimeter (Q4205) to Medicare fee-for-service in Texas in 2024; the top five named groups hold 72% of that volume, and independent (non-hospital-affiliated) groups deliver 11%.

Q4205 — Membrane graft or membrane wrap, per square centimeter · 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 Q4205 svcs Share*Phone
1 FRONTIER FOOT AND ANKLE SPECIALISTS LLC BANDONTXPODIATRY 3 10,851 12.3% (541) 329-2555
2 SPENCER J HARDENBROOK MD PC PLANTATIONTXNURSE PRACTITIONER 98 5,583 6.3% (800) 640-3451
3 SUMMIT FAMILY PRACTICE PLLC BELLAIRETXFAMILY PRACTICE 2 3,274 3.7% (713) 626-2334
4 XPERTMD WEBSTERTXINTERNAL MEDICINE 42 1,842 2.1% (281) 332-3001
5 HEALING PARTNERS PLUS PLLC BALA CYNWYDTXNURSE PRACTITIONER 139 1,426 1.6% (888) 402-0202
6 FLOW HEALTH PC FORT WORTHTXNURSE PRACTITIONER 4 1,336 1.5% (407) 315-2271
7 VICTORY WOUND CARE AUSTINTXPHYSICIAN ASSISTANT 5 1,335 1.5% (737) 667-5575
8 WOUND MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS LLC JACKSONTXNURSE PRACTITIONER 157 1,274 1.4% (769) 243-6141
9 MOBILEMED, PLLC EL PASOTXNURSE PRACTITIONER 13 1,258 1.4% (915) 307-4669
10 PRIMARY HEALTH PHYSICIANS PLLC FORT WORTHTXPHYSICIAN ASSISTANT 234 1,088 1.2% (817) 294-1651
11 INTEGRATED REHAB CONSULTANTS LLC CHICAGOTXPHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION 164 856 1.0% (773) 224-5900
12 PHLOGICS RICHARDSONTXNURSE PRACTITIONER 7 544 0.6% (214) 613-0400
13 ADVANCE WOUND CARE AND HYPERBARIC SPECIALISTS OF TEXAS PLANOTXNURSE PRACTITIONER 5 510 0.6% (469) 406-4225
14 RGV WOUND CARE HYPERBARICMEDICINE AND LYMPHEDEMA MANAGEMENT GROUP PLLC MCALLENTXPHYSICIAN ASSISTANT 13 482 0.5% (956) 331-8150
15 ELITE DERMATOLOGY, PLLC FULSHEARTXDERMATOLOGY 25 102 0.1% (281) 612-0050

*Share of Texas's disclosed Medicare-FFS services for Q4205, counted once per clinician. Volume is placed in the state it was billed from, so this page ranks the groups actually billing Q4205 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 →