UNSPSC 85612111: Revision of intraluminal device in hepatobiliary duct, via natural or artificial opening

This classification denotes the group of activities that yields a surgical intervention or procedure to revision of intraluminal device in hepatobiliary duct, via natural or artificial opening. 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 0FWB7DZ

UNSPSC 85612111 Revision of intraluminal device in hepatobiliary duct, via natural or artificial opening (Commodity) shows little relevant recent activity under the code's nominal scope. The recent solicitations tagged to this code—independent medical evaluation services for pension disability determinations, surgical benefit carve-out programs, occupational medical surveillance, emergency and specialty healthcare for youth in custody, pharmacy benefit management, and temporary health professional staffing—are administrative healthcare services and benefit program management, not revision or placement of hepatobiliary intraluminal devices. The disconnect between the code name and the work actually being procured suggests either misclassification in source records or that state and local procurement offices are applying the code outside its medical device revision taxonomy. None of the opportunities involve surgical intervention, device placement, or the procedural services that the code nominally describes.

The issuing bodies span multiple state and local jurisdictions: municipal retirement boards (City of Phoenix), cities (City of Long Beach, Washington), county governments (Harris County, Collier County, Santa Clara County), and state transportation agencies (Washington State Department of Transportation). Geographic activity appears concentrated in Arizona, California, Florida, and Washington, though the underlying solicitations address distinct procurement needs rather than a coherent commodity family. Business development professionals should treat this code as unreliable for procurement planning in the current market and verify actual work scope against source RFP documents rather than relying on the UNSPSC taxonomy alone.