Hospital

OROVILLE HOSPITAL

CCN: 050030 · OROVILLE, CA 95966 · BUTTE County

Bottom quartile Middle Top quartile Percentile badges compare this hospital to all 5,426 hospitals nationally.

Overview

Address
2767 OLIVE HIGHWAY, OROVILLE, CA 95966
Phone
(530) 533-8500
Hospital Type
Acute Care
Ownership
Non-Profit
Emergency Services
Yes
1 /5
★★★★★
CMS Overall Rating
p0
Acute Care — General medical and surgical hospital participating in Medicare IPPS. Subject to CMS quality reporting and payment adjustment programs (VBP, HRRP, HAC).

CMS Star Rating — Quality Domain Breakdown

CMS computes the overall star rating from five quality domains. Each domain compares this hospital's measures against national benchmarks.

Mortality 6 of 7 measures reported
3
3
Better No different Worse
30-day death rates for heart attack, heart failure, pneumonia, COPD, stroke, CABG, and kidney disease.
Safety of Care 7 of 8 measures reported
1
6
Better No different Worse
Healthcare-associated infections and patient safety indicators (PSI-90 composite).
Readmission 10 of 11 measures reported
4
6
Better No different Worse
30-day unplanned readmission rates for heart attack, heart failure, pneumonia, COPD, hip/knee replacement, and CABG.
Patient Experience 8 of 8 measures reported
8 measures reported (comparative data not available for this domain)
HCAHPS survey scores — patient-reported experience with communication, responsiveness, cleanliness, and discharge planning.
Timely & Effective Care 10 of 12 measures reported
10 measures reported (comparative data not available for this domain)
Process-of-care measures including flu immunization, blood clot prevention, and appropriate use of imaging.

Readmissions — Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program

The Excess Readmission Ratio (ERR) compares this hospital's 30-day readmission rate to expected, adjusting for patient mix. An ERR of 1.0 means readmissions are as expected; > 1.0 triggers a Medicare payment penalty (up to 3%).

⚠ This hospital has excess readmissions in at least one condition and is subject to HRRP payment reduction.
Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) 51 discharges
1.0894 p91
Heart Failure 285 discharges
1.3606 p100
Pneumonia 833 discharges
1.4255 p100
COPD 99 discharges
1.2545 p100
Hip/Knee Replacement
1.1118 p78
CABG Surgery
— Not reported
Expected (1.0) National median

Value-Based Purchasing

The Hospital VBP Program adjusts Medicare payments based on clinical quality. The Total Performance Score (TPS) is a weighted composite of four domains, each worth 25%. This hospital's TPS is above the national median, suggesting a positive payment adjustment.

38.9 p77
Total Performance Score
National median: 29.5
Clinical Outcomes 25% weight
12.0 p88
Nat'l median: 5.0
Measures mortality rates for conditions like heart attack, heart failure, pneumonia, and COPD. Based on 30-day risk-standardized mortality.
Safety 25% weight
6.7 p21
Nat'l median: 10.0
Patient safety measures including healthcare-associated infections (CLABSI, CAUTI, SSI, MRSA, C. diff) and perioperative complications.
Person & Community Engagement 25% weight
0.3 p0
Nat'l median: 8.8
Based on HCAHPS patient experience survey results — communication with nurses and doctors, hospital cleanliness, pain management, discharge information.
Efficiency & Cost Reduction 25% weight
20.0 p93
Nat'l median: 2.5
Based on Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB). Measures episode-of-care costs from 3 days before admission through 30 days after discharge.

CMS Payment Programs

Three Medicare programs adjust hospital payments based on quality performance. Hospitals can be penalized under multiple programs simultaneously.

Readmissions (HRRP)
Penalized
Worst ERR: 1.4255
Value-Based Purchasing
38.9 TPS
Above national median
HAC Reduction
Payment Reduced
HAC Score: 0.6428

Complications & Deaths

30-day mortality rates, patient safety indicators, and complication rates. "Better" means statistically significantly better than the national rate.

Measure Score vs. National Denominator
COMP_HIP_KNEE 4.10 No Different Than the National Rate 133
Hybrid_HWM 3.70 No Different Than the National Rate 1,395
MORT_30_AMI 13.70 No Different Than the National Rate 65
MORT_30_CABG — — —
MORT_30_COPD 5.10 Better Than the National Rate 91
MORT_30_HF 8.20 Better Than the National Rate 234
MORT_30_PN 12.80 Better Than the National Rate 722
MORT_30_STK 13.80 No Different Than the National Rate 157
PSI_03 0.11 No Different Than the National Rate 4,910
PSI_04 161.51 No Different Than the National Rate 64
PSI_06 0.14 No Different Than the National Rate 7,583
PSI_08 0.31 No Different Than the National Rate 7,702
PSI_09 1.71 No Different Than the National Rate 1,061
PSI_10 1.44 No Different Than the National Rate 384
PSI_11 16.04 Worse Than the National Rate 404
PSI_12 2.75 No Different Than the National Rate 1,113
PSI_13 4.47 No Different Than the National Rate 340
PSI_14 1.61 No Different Than the National Rate 214
PSI_15 1.07 No Different Than the National Rate 1,061
PSI_90 0.94 No Different Than the National Value —

Patient Experience (HCAHPS)

Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems — standardized patient survey measuring satisfaction with care.

Measure Score Star Rating
H_COMP_1_A_P: Nurses "always" communicated well 63% —
H_COMP_1_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 11% —
H_COMP_1_U_P: Nurses "usually" communicated well 26% —
H_COMP_1_LINEAR_SCORE: Nurse communication - linear mean score — —
H_COMP_1_STAR_RATING: Nurse communication - star rating — 1
H_NURSE_RESPECT_A_P: Nurses "always" treated them with courtesy and respect 72% —
H_NURSE_RESPECT_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" treated them with courtesy and respect 8% —
H_NURSE_RESPECT_U_P: Nurses "usually" treated them with courtesy and respect 20% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_A_P: Nurses "always" listened carefully 58% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 13% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_U_P: Nurses "usually" listened carefully 29% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_A_P: Nurses "always" explained things so they could understand 59% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" explained things so they could understand 14% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_U_P: Nurses "usually" explained things so they could understand 27% —
H_COMP_2_A_P: Doctors "always" communicated well 65% —
H_COMP_2_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 11% —
H_COMP_2_U_P: Doctors "usually" communicated well 24% —
H_COMP_2_LINEAR_SCORE: Doctor communication - linear mean score — —
H_COMP_2_STAR_RATING: Doctor communication - star rating — 1
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_A_P: Doctors "always" treated them with courtesy and respect 72% —
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" treated them with courtesy and respect 8% —
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_U_P: Doctors "usually" treated them with courtesy and respect 20% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_A_P: Doctors "always" listened carefully 64% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 11% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_U_P: Doctors "usually" listened carefully 25% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_A_P: Doctors "always" explained things so they could understand 60% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" explained things so they could understand 13% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_U_P: Doctors "usually" explained things so they could understand 27% —
H_COMP_5_A_P: Staff "always" explained 46% —
H_COMP_5_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained 33% —
H_COMP_5_U_P: Staff "usually" explained 21% —
H_COMP_5_LINEAR_SCORE: Communication about medicines - linear mean score — —
H_COMP_5_STAR_RATING: Communication about medicines - star rating — 1
H_MED_FOR_A_P: Staff "always" explained new medications 57% —
H_MED_FOR_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained new medications 19% —
H_MED_FOR_U_P: Staff "usually" explained new medications 24% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_A_P: Staff "always" explained possible side effects 35% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained possible side effects 46% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_U_P: Staff "usually" explained possible side effects 19% —
H_COMP_6_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients this information 23% —
H_COMP_6_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients this information 77% —
H_COMP_6_LINEAR_SCORE: Discharge information - linear mean score — —
H_COMP_6_STAR_RATING: Discharge information - star rating — 1
H_DISCH_HELP_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients information about help after discharge 24% —
H_DISCH_HELP_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about help after discharge 76% —
H_SYMPTOMS_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients information about possible symptoms 22% —
H_SYMPTOMS_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about possible symptoms 78% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_A_P: Room was "always" clean 45% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_SN_P: Room was "sometimes" or "never" clean 25% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_U_P: Room was "usually" clean 30% —
H_CLEAN_LINEAR_SCORE: Cleanliness - linear mean score — —
H_CLEAN_STAR_RATING: Cleanliness - star rating — 1
H_QUIET_HSP_A_P: "Always" quiet at night 31% —
H_QUIET_HSP_SN_P: "Sometimes" or "never" quiet at night 32% —
H_QUIET_HSP_U_P: "Usually" quiet at night 37% —
H_QUIET_LINEAR_SCORE: Quietness - linear mean score — —
H_QUIET_STAR_RATING: Quietness - star rating — 1
H_HSP_RATING_0_6: Patients who gave a rating of "6" or lower (low) 28% —
H_HSP_RATING_7_8: Patients who gave a rating of "7" or "8" (medium) 38% —
H_HSP_RATING_9_10: Patients who gave a rating of "9" or "10" (high) 34% —
H_HSP_RATING_LINEAR_SCORE: Overall hospital rating - linear mean score — —
H_HSP_RATING_STAR_RATING: Overall hospital rating - star rating — 1
H_RECMND_DN: "NO", patients would not recommend the hospital (they probably would not or definitely would not recommend it) 22% —
H_RECMND_DY: "YES", patients would definitely recommend the hospital 34% —
H_RECMND_PY: "YES", patients would probably recommend the hospital 44% —
H_RECMND_LINEAR_SCORE: Recommend hospital - linear mean score — —
H_RECMND_STAR_RATING: Recommend hospital - star rating — 1
H_STAR_RATING: Summary star rating — 1

Healthcare Associated Infections

Standardized Infection Ratios (SIR). A SIR < 1.0 means fewer infections than predicted based on national baseline data.

Measure Score (SIR) vs. National
HAI_1_CILOWER 0.032 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_CIUPPER 3.188 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_DOPC 1947.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_ELIGCASES 1.547 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_NUMERATOR 1.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_SIR 0.646 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_CILOWER 0.125 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_CIUPPER 1.336 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_DOPC 7776.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_ELIGCASES 6.110 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_NUMERATOR 3.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_SIR 0.491 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_CILOWER 0.030 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_CIUPPER 2.941 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_DOPC 60.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_ELIGCASES 1.677 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_NUMERATOR 1.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_SIR 0.596 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_CILOWER — —
HAI_4_CIUPPER — —
HAI_4_DOPC 63.000 —
HAI_4_ELIGCASES 0.744 —
HAI_4_NUMERATOR 5.000 —
HAI_4_SIR — —
HAI_5_CILOWER N/A No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_CIUPPER 1.453 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_DOPC 40952.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_ELIGCASES 2.062 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_NUMERATOR 0.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_SIR 0.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_6_CILOWER 0.157 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_CIUPPER 0.807 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_DOPC 40952.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_ELIGCASES 15.470 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_NUMERATOR 6.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_SIR 0.388 Better than the National Benchmark

Timely & Effective Care

Process-of-care measures including ED wait times, treatment timeliness, and preventive care.

Measure Score Condition
EDV medium Emergency Department
GMCS — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
GMCS_Malnutrition_Diagnosis_Documented — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
GMCS_Malnutrition_Screening — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
GMCS_Nutrition_Assessment — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
GMCS_Nutritional_Care_Plan — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
HH_HYPER — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
HH_HYPO 1.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
HH_ORAE 1.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
IMM_3 46.0 Healthcare Personnel Vaccination
OP_18a 251.0 Emergency Department
OP_18b 244.0 Emergency Department
OP_18c 506.0 Emergency Department
OP_18d — Emergency Department
OP_22 13.0 Emergency Department
OP_23 45.0 Emergency Department
OP_29 95.0 Colonoscopy care
OP_31 — Cataract surgery outcome
OP_40 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SAFE_USE_OF_OPIOIDS 15.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SEP_1 69.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_3HR 81.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_6HR — Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_3HR 74.0 Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_6HR 97.0 Sepsis Care
STK_02 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_03 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_05 82.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
VTE_1 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
VTE_2 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure

Unplanned Hospital Visits

Readmission and ED return rates within 30 days of discharge.

Measure Score vs. National
EDAC_30_AMI 16.40 Average Days per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_HF 50.20 More Days Than Average per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_PN 57.10 More Days Than Average per 100 Discharges
Hybrid_HWR 19.30 Worse Than the National Rate
OP_32 14.00 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_35_ADM 14.70 Worse Than the National Rate
OP_35_ED 4.40 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_36 1.10 No Different than expected
READM_30_AMI 14.70 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_CABG — —
READM_30_COPD 22.90 Worse Than the National Rate
READM_30_HF 26.60 Worse Than the National Rate
READM_30_HIP_KNEE 5.30 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_PN 22.70 Worse Than the National Rate

Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary

MSPB ratio: values > 1.0 mean this hospital's episode spending is higher than the national median hospital.

Value
0.88

Financial Health (Cost Report — FY 2023)

All Data

Every labeled metric surfaced for this hospital, with national medians and percentiles where a benchmark is available.

Download CSV

Show 91 rows
Source Metric Value National Median Pctl. Raw key
Cost Report Cost-to-Charge Ratio 0.27 — metrics.cost_to_charge_ratio
Cost Report Current Ratio 1.66 — metrics.current_ratio
Cost Report Employees per Bed 8.67 — metrics.employees_per_bed
Cost Report fiscal_year 2,023 — fiscal_year
Cost Report Fund Balance ($) $149,406,556 — metrics.fund_balance
Cost Report Net Income ($) $15,105,882 — metrics.net_income
Cost Report Net Patient Revenue ($) $382,116,003 — metrics.net_patient_revenue
Cost Report Operating Margin (%) -1.2% — metrics.operating_margin
Cost Report Total Assets ($) $513,363,977 — metrics.total_assets
Cost Report Total Costs ($) $284,218,986 — metrics.total_costs
Cost Report Total Liabilities ($) $363,957,421 — metrics.total_liabilities
Cost Report Total Margin (%) 3.8% — metrics.total_margin
Cost Report Uncompensated Care (%) 0.4% — metrics.uncompensated_care_pct
General Information Address 2767 OLIVE HIGHWAY — Address
General Information City/Town OROVILLE — City/Town
General Information Count of Facility MORT Measures 6 — Count of Facility MORT Measures
General Information Count of Facility Pt Exp Measures 8 — Count of Facility Pt Exp Measures
General Information Count of Facility READM Measures 10 — Count of Facility READM Measures
General Information Count of Facility Safety Measures 7 — Count of Facility Safety Measures
General Information Count of Facility TE Measures 10 — Count of Facility TE Measures
General Information Count of MORT Measures Better 3 — Count of MORT Measures Better
General Information Count of MORT Measures No Different 3 — Count of MORT Measures No Different
General Information Count of MORT Measures Worse 0 — Count of MORT Measures Worse
General Information Count of READM Measures Better 0 — Count of READM Measures Better
General Information Count of READM Measures No Different 4 — Count of READM Measures No Different
General Information Count of READM Measures Worse 6 — Count of READM Measures Worse
General Information Count of Safety Measures Better 1 — Count of Safety Measures Better
General Information Count of Safety Measures No Different 6 — Count of Safety Measures No Different
General Information Count of Safety Measures Worse 0 — Count of Safety Measures Worse
General Information County/Parish BUTTE — County/Parish
General Information Emergency Services Yes — Emergency Services
General Information Facility ID 050030 — Facility ID
General Information Facility Name OROVILLE HOSPITAL — Facility Name
General Information Hospital overall rating 1 — Hospital overall rating
General Information Hospital overall rating footnote — — Hospital overall rating footnote
General Information Hospital Ownership Voluntary non-profit - Private — Hospital Ownership
General Information Hospital Type Acute Care Hospitals — Hospital Type
General Information Meets criteria for birthing friendly designation — — Meets criteria for birthing friendly designation
General Information MORT Group Footnote — — MORT Group Footnote
General Information MORT Group Measure Count 7 — MORT Group Measure Count
General Information Pt Exp Group Footnote — — Pt Exp Group Footnote
General Information Pt Exp Group Measure Count 8 — Pt Exp Group Measure Count
General Information READM Group Footnote — — READM Group Footnote
General Information READM Group Measure Count 11 — READM Group Measure Count
General Information Safety Group Footnote — — Safety Group Footnote
General Information Safety Group Measure Count 8 — Safety Group Measure Count
General Information State CA — State
General Information TE Group Footnote — — TE Group Footnote
General Information TE Group Measure Count 12 — TE Group Measure Count
General Information Telephone Number (530) 533-8500 — Telephone Number
General Information ZIP Code 95966 — ZIP Code
HAC Reduction Program fiscal_year 2,026 — fiscal_year
HAC Reduction Program measures — cauti — sir 0.59 — measures.cauti.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — cdi — sir 0.46 — measures.cdi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — clabsi — sir 1.46 — measures.clabsi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — mrsa — sir 0.54 — measures.mrsa.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — ssi — sir 2.46 — measures.ssi.sir
HAC Reduction Program payment_reduction Yes — payment_reduction
HAC Reduction Program total_hac_score 0.64 — total_hac_score
Medicare Spending per Beneficiary End Date 12/31/2024 — End Date
Medicare Spending per Beneficiary Measure ID MSPB-1 — Measure ID
Medicare Spending per Beneficiary Start Date 01/01/2024 — Start Date
Medicare Spending per Beneficiary Value 0.88 — Value
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Excess readmission ratio 1.09 0.9995 p91 READM-30-AMI-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Expected readmission rate 15.3% — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Number of discharges 51 — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Number of readmissions 13 — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Predicted readmission rate 16.7% — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Excess readmission ratio 1.25 0.9969 p100 READM-30-COPD-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Expected readmission rate 20.8% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Number of discharges 99 — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Number of readmissions 44 — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Predicted readmission rate 26.1% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Excess readmission ratio 1.36 0.9983 p100 READM-30-HF-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Expected readmission rate 19.3% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of discharges 285 — READM-30-HF-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of readmissions 98 — READM-30-HF-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Predicted readmission rate 26.2% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Excess readmission ratio 1.11 0.9916 p78 READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Expected readmission rate 5.2% — READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Predicted readmission rate 5.8% — READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Excess readmission ratio 1.43 0.9955 p100 READM-30-PN-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Expected readmission rate 17.2% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of discharges 833 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of readmissions 229 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Predicted readmission rate 24.5% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Value-Based Purchasing Clinical Outcomes 12.00 5.00 p88 clinical_outcomes_score
Value-Based Purchasing Efficiency & Cost Reduction 20.00 2.50 p93 efficiency_score
Value-Based Purchasing Person & Community Engagement 0.25 8.75 p0 person_community_score
Value-Based Purchasing Safety 6.67 10.00 p21 safety_score
Value-Based Purchasing Total Performance Score 38.92 29.50 p77 total_performance_score
Methodology

Full methodology →