UNSPSC 85753205: Revision of infusion device in epididymis and spermatic cord, percutaneous approach

This classification denotes the group of activities that yields a surgical intervention or procedure to revision of infusion device in epididymis and spermatic cord, percutaneous 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 0VWM33Z

UNSPSC 85753205 Revision of infusion device in epididymis and spermatic cord, percutaneous approach is a Commodity code that shows minimal alignment with actual state and local procurement activity. The code's technical medical nomenclature—describing a urological surgical procedure—does not match the work being solicited under this code designation in recent state and local opportunities.

Recent solicitations tagged to this code span disability medical evaluation services, surgical benefit carve-out programs, occupational medical surveillance, specialty medical care for detained youth, pharmacy benefit management, and temporary health professional staffing. The issuing bodies include the City of Phoenix Retirement Office (RFP for independent medical evaluation services due October 16, 2026), the City of Long Beach (RFP for Centers of Excellence surgical carve-out programs due October 7, 2026), the Washington State Department of Transportation on behalf of the Washington State Ferries (RFP for occupational medical surveillance due October 9, 2026), Harris County Juvenile Probation Department (RFI for specialty and emergency medical services due September 25, 2026), Collier County Board of County Commissioners (RFP for pharmacy benefit management services, initially due April 9, 2026), and Santa Clara County Health System (RFQ for temporary health professional staffing due October 7, 2026). The geographic spread spans Arizona, California, Washington, Texas, and Florida. These opportunities are grounded in administrative health services, benefits management, occupational health compliance, and clinical staffing—none of which relate to the code's stated urological procedure scope. The apparent mismatch between the code definition and the work actually being procured suggests either miscoding in the source data or a systematic classification problem with this particular code in state and local procurement systems.