Nine codes in one category, and why that is the whole argument.

Continence care is nine HCPCS codes. Not a specialty, not a service line, nine codes. That is small enough for one person to hold the entire category in their head, and it is the reason this is a product of its own rather than a saved filter on a market-wide index.

The case for going narrow is easiest to see in a single fact. A4297 and A4353 share one 200-unit monthly ceiling, and that ceiling did not double when the January 2026 hydrophilic split created a second kit code. An index built to store a rate against a code has nowhere to put that, because it is not a rate. It is a rule about two rates, and it only gets modelled by somebody looking at nine codes instead of at five million.

That same split is the second reason. A4295, A4296 and A4297 came into being in January 2026, and a split like that changes what you may bill, what you have to document, and which fee-schedule line applies, all in one quarter. A product indexing the whole market sees three new rows appear. A product built on nine codes sees an event, and can say what it means for the codes you actually ship.

The third reason is where the evidence lives. One real question about one of these codes is answered across four places, which are the coverage database CMS publishes, the classification guidance PDAC publishes, the documentation article the DME MAC publishes, and the quarterly DMEPOS fee schedule. None of the four agrees with the others about where the answer is.

Two of those four resist software. The coverage database blocks automated tools. One MAC publishes its guidance as a PDF that will not parse. Breadth is no help with either. Somebody has to sit with each source, for each code, and keep sitting with it as the sources change, and that is only affordable when the code set is nine long.

The commercial half comes from six national payers, which publish machine-readable files under the Transparency in Coverage rule. Six is not the market. It is the set whose files are read for these nine codes, and each one is named on its own page with the figures it reports about itself.

So the whole argument is depth in a category nobody has bothered to model, rather than breadth across a market where these nine codes are a rounding error. It is a bet about where the useful work is. It is written down here so you can judge it before you talk to us.