Hospital

SUTTER ROSEVILLE MEDICAL CENTER

CCN: 050309 · ROSEVILLE, CA 95661 · PLACER County

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

Overview

Address
ONE MEDICAL PLAZA, ROSEVILLE, CA 95661
Phone
(916) 781-1000
Hospital Type
Acute Care
Ownership
Non-Profit
Emergency Services
Yes
Birthing Friendly
Yes
3 /5
★★★★★
CMS Overall Rating
p30
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
6
Better No different Worse
30-day death rates for heart attack, heart failure, pneumonia, COPD, stroke, CABG, and kidney disease.
Safety of Care 8 of 8 measures reported
2
5
1
Better No different Worse
Healthcare-associated infections and patient safety indicators (PSI-90 composite).
Readmission 10 of 11 measures reported
2
8
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 9 of 12 measures reported
9 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) 430 discharges
0.8807 p3
Heart Failure 876 discharges
0.9408 p15
Pneumonia 824 discharges
0.9595 p24
COPD 282 discharges
1.0412 p81
Hip/Knee Replacement
1.0813 p73
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.

46.1 p89
Total Performance Score
National median: 29.5
Clinical Outcomes 25% weight
11.0 p85
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
15.8 p83
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
14.3 p81
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
5.0 p56
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: 1.0813
Value-Based Purchasing
46.1 TPS
Above national median
HAC Reduction
No Reduction
HAC Score: -0.5440

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 6.80 Worse Than the National Rate 42
Hybrid_HWM 3.20 Better Than the National Rate 3,682
MORT_30_AMI 11.70 No Different Than the National Rate 463
MORT_30_CABG — Number of Cases Too Small —
MORT_30_COPD 8.50 No Different Than the National Rate 258
MORT_30_HF 10.00 No Different Than the National Rate 780
MORT_30_PN 13.80 Better Than the National Rate 795
MORT_30_STK 11.10 No Different Than the National Rate 508
PSI_03 0.08 Better Than the National Rate 12,400
PSI_04 147.20 No Different Than the National Rate 191
PSI_06 0.25 No Different Than the National Rate 14,300
PSI_08 0.23 No Different Than the National Rate 14,490
PSI_09 2.06 No Different Than the National Rate 2,944
PSI_10 1.38 No Different Than the National Rate 938
PSI_11 9.03 No Different Than the National Rate 840
PSI_12 4.43 No Different Than the National Rate 3,117
PSI_13 6.43 No Different Than the National Rate 899
PSI_14 1.73 No Different Than the National Rate 819
PSI_15 1.33 No Different Than the National Rate 2,916
PSI_90 0.90 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 79% —
H_COMP_1_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 3% —
H_COMP_1_U_P: Nurses "usually" communicated well 18% —
H_COMP_1_LINEAR_SCORE: Nurse communication - linear mean score — —
H_COMP_1_STAR_RATING: Nurse communication - star rating — 4
H_NURSE_RESPECT_A_P: Nurses "always" treated them with courtesy and respect 87% —
H_NURSE_RESPECT_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" treated them with courtesy and respect 2% —
H_NURSE_RESPECT_U_P: Nurses "usually" treated them with courtesy and respect 11% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_A_P: Nurses "always" listened carefully 76% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 3% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_U_P: Nurses "usually" listened carefully 21% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_A_P: Nurses "always" explained things so they could understand 75% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" explained things so they could understand 5% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_U_P: Nurses "usually" explained things so they could understand 20% —
H_COMP_2_A_P: Doctors "always" communicated well 79% —
H_COMP_2_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 5% —
H_COMP_2_U_P: Doctors "usually" communicated well 16% —
H_COMP_2_LINEAR_SCORE: Doctor communication - linear mean score — —
H_COMP_2_STAR_RATING: Doctor communication - star rating — 3
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_A_P: Doctors "always" treated them with courtesy and respect 85% —
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" treated them with courtesy and respect 3% —
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_U_P: Doctors "usually" treated them with courtesy and respect 12% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_A_P: Doctors "always" listened carefully 78% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 5% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_U_P: Doctors "usually" listened carefully 17% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_A_P: Doctors "always" explained things so they could understand 73% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" explained things so they could understand 6% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_U_P: Doctors "usually" explained things so they could understand 21% —
H_COMP_5_A_P: Staff "always" explained 63% —
H_COMP_5_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained 17% —
H_COMP_5_U_P: Staff "usually" explained 20% —
H_COMP_5_LINEAR_SCORE: Communication about medicines - linear mean score — —
H_COMP_5_STAR_RATING: Communication about medicines - star rating — 3
H_MED_FOR_A_P: Staff "always" explained new medications 77% —
H_MED_FOR_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained new medications 8% —
H_MED_FOR_U_P: Staff "usually" explained new medications 15% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_A_P: Staff "always" explained possible side effects 49% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained possible side effects 27% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_U_P: Staff "usually" explained possible side effects 24% —
H_COMP_6_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients this information 12% —
H_COMP_6_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients this information 88% —
H_COMP_6_LINEAR_SCORE: Discharge information - linear mean score — —
H_COMP_6_STAR_RATING: Discharge information - star rating — 4
H_DISCH_HELP_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients information about help after discharge 11% —
H_DISCH_HELP_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about help after discharge 89% —
H_SYMPTOMS_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients information about possible symptoms 12% —
H_SYMPTOMS_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about possible symptoms 88% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_A_P: Room was "always" clean 75% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_SN_P: Room was "sometimes" or "never" clean 8% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_U_P: Room was "usually" clean 17% —
H_CLEAN_LINEAR_SCORE: Cleanliness - linear mean score — —
H_CLEAN_STAR_RATING: Cleanliness - star rating — 4
H_QUIET_HSP_A_P: "Always" quiet at night 52% —
H_QUIET_HSP_SN_P: "Sometimes" or "never" quiet at night 14% —
H_QUIET_HSP_U_P: "Usually" quiet at night 34% —
H_QUIET_LINEAR_SCORE: Quietness - linear mean score — —
H_QUIET_STAR_RATING: Quietness - star rating — 2
H_HSP_RATING_0_6: Patients who gave a rating of "6" or lower (low) 7% —
H_HSP_RATING_7_8: Patients who gave a rating of "7" or "8" (medium) 15% —
H_HSP_RATING_9_10: Patients who gave a rating of "9" or "10" (high) 78% —
H_HSP_RATING_LINEAR_SCORE: Overall hospital rating - linear mean score — —
H_HSP_RATING_STAR_RATING: Overall hospital rating - star rating — 4
H_RECMND_DN: "NO", patients would not recommend the hospital (they probably would not or definitely would not recommend it) 4% —
H_RECMND_DY: "YES", patients would definitely recommend the hospital 79% —
H_RECMND_PY: "YES", patients would probably recommend the hospital 17% —
H_RECMND_LINEAR_SCORE: Recommend hospital - linear mean score — —
H_RECMND_STAR_RATING: Recommend hospital - star rating — 5
H_STAR_RATING: Summary star rating — 4

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 0.166 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_1_CIUPPER 0.853 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_1_DOPC 13822.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_1_ELIGCASES 14.628 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_1_NUMERATOR 6.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_1_SIR 0.410 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_CILOWER N/A Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_CIUPPER 0.223 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_DOPC 10869.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_ELIGCASES 13.408 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_NUMERATOR 0.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_SIR 0.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_3_CILOWER 0.223 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_CIUPPER 1.347 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_DOPC 314.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_ELIGCASES 8.225 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_NUMERATOR 5.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_SIR 0.608 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_CILOWER — —
HAI_4_CIUPPER — —
HAI_4_DOPC 85.000 —
HAI_4_ELIGCASES 0.663 —
HAI_4_NUMERATOR 0.000 —
HAI_4_SIR — —
HAI_5_CILOWER 0.031 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_5_CIUPPER 0.603 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_5_DOPC 123249.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_5_ELIGCASES 10.960 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_5_NUMERATOR 2.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_5_SIR 0.182 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_CILOWER 0.039 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_CIUPPER 0.200 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_DOPC 115606.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_ELIGCASES 62.244 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_NUMERATOR 6.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_SIR 0.096 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 very high 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 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
IMM_3 60.0 Healthcare Personnel Vaccination
OP_18a 238.0 Emergency Department
OP_18b 235.0 Emergency Department
OP_18c 510.0 Emergency Department
OP_18d — Emergency Department
OP_22 1.0 Emergency Department
OP_23 75.0 Emergency Department
OP_29 95.0 Colonoscopy care
OP_31 — Cataract surgery outcome
OP_40 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SAFE_USE_OF_OPIOIDS 17.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SEP_1 68.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_3HR 71.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_6HR 80.0 Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_3HR 77.0 Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_6HR 95.0 Sepsis Care
STK_02 99.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_03 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_05 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
VTE_1 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
VTE_2 100.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure

Unplanned Hospital Visits

Readmission and ED return rates within 30 days of discharge.

Measure Score vs. National
EDAC_30_AMI -13.20 Fewer Days Than Average per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_HF 0.00 Average Days per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_PN 7.90 More Days Than Average per 100 Discharges
Hybrid_HWR 14.60 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_32 13.20 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_35_ADM 10.20 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_35_ED 5.50 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_36 0.80 No Different than expected
READM_30_AMI 12.00 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_CABG — Number of Cases Too Small
READM_30_COPD 19.00 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_HF 18.50 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_HIP_KNEE 5.20 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_PN 15.30 No Different 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
0.95

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 0.23 — metrics.cost_to_charge_ratio
Cost Report Current Ratio 6.62 — metrics.current_ratio
Cost Report Employees per Bed 7.68 — metrics.employees_per_bed
Cost Report fiscal_year 2,023 — fiscal_year
Cost Report Fund Balance ($) $463,607,745 — metrics.fund_balance
Cost Report Net Income ($) $130,835,550 — metrics.net_income
Cost Report Net Patient Revenue ($) $1,083,143,001 — metrics.net_patient_revenue
Cost Report Operating Margin (%) 10.0% — metrics.operating_margin
Cost Report Total Assets ($) $610,507,805 — metrics.total_assets
Cost Report Total Costs ($) $852,721,998 — metrics.total_costs
Cost Report Total Liabilities ($) $146,900,060 — metrics.total_liabilities
Cost Report Total Margin (%) 11.8% — metrics.total_margin
Cost Report Uncompensated Care (%) 2.1% — metrics.uncompensated_care_pct
General Information Address ONE MEDICAL PLAZA — Address
General Information City/Town ROSEVILLE — 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 8 — Count of Facility Safety Measures
General Information Count of Facility TE Measures 9 — Count of Facility TE Measures
General Information Count of MORT Measures Better 0 — Count of MORT Measures Better
General Information Count of MORT Measures No Different 6 — 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 2 — Count of READM Measures Better
General Information Count of READM Measures No Different 8 — Count of READM Measures No Different
General Information Count of READM Measures Worse 0 — Count of READM Measures Worse
General Information Count of Safety Measures Better 2 — Count of Safety Measures Better
General Information Count of Safety Measures No Different 5 — Count of Safety Measures No Different
General Information Count of Safety Measures Worse 1 — Count of Safety Measures Worse
General Information County/Parish PLACER — County/Parish
General Information Emergency Services Yes — Emergency Services
General Information Facility ID 050309 — Facility ID
General Information Facility Name SUTTER ROSEVILLE MEDICAL CENTER — Facility Name
General Information Hospital overall rating 3 — 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 Y — 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 (916) 781-1000 — Telephone Number
General Information ZIP Code 95661 — ZIP Code
HAC Reduction Program fiscal_year 2,026 — fiscal_year
HAC Reduction Program measures — cauti — sir 0.57 — measures.cauti.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — cdi — sir 0.19 — measures.cdi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — clabsi — sir 0.27 — measures.clabsi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — mrsa — sir 0.34 — measures.mrsa.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — ssi — sir 0.55 — measures.ssi.sir
HAC Reduction Program payment_reduction No — payment_reduction
HAC Reduction Program total_hac_score -0.54 — 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 0.95 — Value
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Excess readmission ratio 0.88 0.9995 p3 READM-30-AMI-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Expected readmission rate 12.5% — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Number of discharges 430 — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Number of readmissions 41 — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Predicted readmission rate 11.0% — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Excess readmission ratio 1.04 0.9969 p81 READM-30-COPD-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Expected readmission rate 18.7% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Number of discharges 282 — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Number of readmissions 58 — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Predicted readmission rate 19.5% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Excess readmission ratio 0.94 0.9983 p15 READM-30-HF-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Expected readmission rate 18.8% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of discharges 876 — READM-30-HF-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of readmissions 151 — READM-30-HF-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Predicted readmission rate 17.7% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Excess readmission ratio 1.08 0.9916 p73 READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Expected readmission rate 5.4% — 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 0.96 0.9955 p24 READM-30-PN-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Expected readmission rate 15.4% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of discharges 824 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of readmissions 119 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Predicted readmission rate 14.8% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Value-Based Purchasing Clinical Outcomes 11.00 5.00 p85 clinical_outcomes_score
Value-Based Purchasing Efficiency & Cost Reduction 5.00 2.50 p56 efficiency_score
Value-Based Purchasing Person & Community Engagement 14.25 8.75 p81 person_community_score
Value-Based Purchasing Safety 15.83 10.00 p83 safety_score
Value-Based Purchasing Total Performance Score 46.08 29.50 p89 total_performance_score
Methodology

Full methodology →