UNSPSC 85812105: Introduction of other diagnostic substance into eye, percutaneous approach

This classification denotes the group of activities that yields a administrative intervention or procedure to introduction of other diagnostic substance into eye, percutaneous approach. This administrative 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 3E0C3KZ

UNSPSC 85812105 Introduction of other diagnostic substance into eye, percutaneous approach is a Commodity code with minimal recent state and local procurement activity aligned to its nominal clinical scope. The recent opportunities posted under this code show little relevance to the code's title—which describes an ophthalmological procedure—and instead reflect a mix of unrelated healthcare service solicitations spanning telehealth, nursing home operations, occupational health, cancer screening, behavioral health, and emergency medical services across California, Nevada, Georgia, Colorado, Florida, and other jurisdictions. The mismatch between the code designation and actual procurement activity suggests either systematic miscoding at the source or a data-quality issue in how these opportunities were tagged.

The issuing bodies span diverse state and local structures: California health plans (Inland Empire Health Plan), state health authorities (Nevada Health Authority, Colorado Department of Human Services, Texas Health and Human Services Commission), county health systems and departments (DeKalb County Georgia, Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, Brevard County, Forsyth County), individual municipalities (City of Ocala, City of Atlanta, City of Phoenix), school districts (Parkway School District), special districts and cooperatives (Sourcewell, H-GAC), and behavioral health-focused county agencies. No issuing body appears more than once in recent postings. Geographic activity spans California, Nevada, Georgia, Colorado, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas, Virginia, Missouri, and other states with no clear regional concentration. Given the pervasive disconnect between the code's clinical definition and the healthcare services actually being solicited, treating this code as active in state and local procurement would likely generate false positives; the code appears to be a classification error rather than a meaningful procurement category at the state and local tier.