UNSPSC 85765101: Revision of other device in pelvic cavity, percutaneous approach

This classification denotes the group of activities that yields a surgical intervention or procedure to revision of other device in pelvic cavity, 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 0WWJ3YZ

UNSPSC 85765101 Revision of other device in pelvic cavity, percutaneous approach is a Commodity code that does not reflect the work state and local governments are actually soliciting. The recent opportunities tagged to this code involve occupational health surveillance, independent medical evaluations for pension disability determinations, surgical benefit carve-outs, pharmacy benefit management, temporary health professional staffing, and medical services for youth in custody — none of which involve pelvic-cavity device revision or percutaneous procedures. The code appears to be a medical procedure taxonomy entry that has been misapplied to a broader category of healthcare service procurement. State and local issuing bodies posting opportunities under this code do not appear to be buying medical device implants or pelvic interventions.

Recent activity includes the City of Phoenix Retirement Office (RFP for independent medical evaluation services due October 16, 2026), the City of Long Beach (RFP for surgical benefit carve-out management due October 7, 2026), the Washington State Department of Transportation on behalf of 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 due April 9, 2026), and the County of Santa Clara Health System (RFQ for temporary health professional staffing due October 7, 2026). Geographic spread includes Arizona, California, Washington State, and Florida. The mismatch between the code's procedural name and the actual procurement activity suggests either systematic miscoding by these jurisdictions or a data quality issue in the underlying taxonomy mapping.