UNSPSC 85542902: Occlusion of aortic lymphatic with intraluminal device, open approach

This classification denotes the group of activities that yields a surgical intervention or procedure to occlusion of aortic lymphatic with intraluminal device, open approach. This surgical intervention or procedure is listed in the World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems or ICD-10 as code 07LD0DZ

UNSPSC 85542902 Occlusion of aortic lymphatic with intraluminal device, open approach is a Commodity code that reflects a mismatch between its clinical nomenclature and the state and local procurement activity actually tagged under it. The recent opportunities posted under this code encompass inmate medical and pharmacy services, pharmacy benefit management administration, virtual primary and urgent care platforms, peer support services for behavioral health workers, and fire department medical director contracts—none of which involve aortic lymphatic procedures or intraluminal medical devices. The code shows no relevant recent activity aligned with its stated scope; instead, it appears to have been applied to health services and administrative contracting opportunities by issuing bodies without clear connection to the code's clinical intent.

Issuing bodies across the sample include a county consolidated government (Muscogee County, Georgia), a county board of commissioners (Collier County, Florida), a county health department (Monroe County, Florida), a county behavioral health division (San Mateo County, California), and a municipal fire department (Santa Monica, California). Recent opportunities range from inmate healthcare management contracts posted by Columbus Consolidated Government (RFP due May 15, 2026) to county-level pharmacy benefit management services (Collier County RFP due April 9, 2026) and virtual primary care platforms (Monroe County RFP due April 16, 2026). Geographic activity spans Florida, Georgia, and California, with no clear concentration. The code's application to these health services suggests either systematic miscoding at the state and local level or a taxonomy misalignment that makes this code unreliable for tracking procurement related to its stated clinical scope. A firm pursuing contracts under this code should verify issuing-body coding practices and expected future procurement intent before investing significant business development effort, as the current tagging pattern does not support predictable category-level sourcing.