Quick Access to Top Providers of any "Popular" Part B CPT Code. OpenMedicare.US

 CMS group "Data.CMS.Gov" has an elaborate website for payments to providers by CPT code.  It's a little tricky to use but powerful.  Find it here:

https://data.cms.gov/provider-summary-by-type-of-service/medicare-physician-other-practitioners/medicare-physician-other-practitioners-by-provider-and-service

There's a nonprofit website OpenMedicare.US, that lets you look up the providers of any CPT code in a simple way.

https://www.openmedicare.us/procedures/81479

You can go here:

https://www.openmedicare.us/procedures

and then scroll down to "search by code or description."  Note, however, they only provide "top 500 codes" and that's among all procedures, not just lab procedures.  

For example, 81479 (unlisted code) makes the top 500, as does 88342 (IHC), while 81162 (BRCA) does not.  When you can't get granular listings, it still offers you the national spend.  

Here's top data for 88342 IHC:

AMA CPT Publishes Latest Batch of Quarterly PLA Codes

 On April 1, 2027, AMA CPT released the results on the latest batch of quarterly PLA codes.  These codes were applied for around December 10, published today, and active July 1

AMA summarizes there were 2 revisions, 4 deletions, and 29 new codes 0631-659U.

https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/cpt-pla-codes-long.pdf

Note that AMA includes a number of important instructions for acceptable or disallowed PLA codes, in the two page prolog to the code list.  E.g. "PLA codes do not have a physician work component," which the PLA committee will review rigorously.

##

The next PLA date is April 14, when they will post new code applications for comment, being codes applied-for around March 10.  Those will be hustled through the system from the April 21 public comment date to the Aprl 30 CPT editorial voting date.  The codes should appear in the June and July CMS pricing meetings.

Will CMS Nationalize MOLDX? Coverage at 360DX

A month ago, CMS announced a major new anti-fraud initiative, called CRUSH.  It had two main targets: DME fraud and genomics fraud.  The comment period closed on March 30, and journalists are sorting through the comments received.

See coverage by Adam Bonislawski here (subscription).   (See my CMS comment here).

I see a Regulations.gov posting that 768 comments were received but I haven't found the "search them" link yet.  

Here's the 18-page comment from ACLA - the fact it runs 18 pages alone, suggests they are taking this very seriously.

Here's a 120 word AI overview of the 2000 page full article.

• Stakeholder comments on the CMS fraud RFI show a divided but nuanced response to possible nationwide MolDX expansion. Lab groups and consultants generally agree that fraud in molecular testing is a real problem and that clearer front-end controls could help. However, their comments emphasize that MolDX also brings slower coverage timelines, heavier documentation demands, and uncertainty for new test launches. 
• ACLA stressed delays and stalled coverage requests; NILA argued CMS should focus more on inappropriate ordering than on labs alone; consultants noted MolDX can improve predictability once coverage is secured, but at the cost of greater upfront burden. 
• The overall tone of stakeholder comment was not anti-oversight, but cautionary: many support stronger anti-fraud tools, yet want CMS to avoid replacing one problem—improper payments—with another—bureaucratic delay and reduced patient access.

And here's a longer summary of the open-access ACLA comment: