Hospital

MENIFEE GLOBAL MEDICAL CENTER

CCN: 050684 · SUN CITY, CA 92585 · RIVERSIDE County

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

Overview

Address
28400 MCCALL BOULEVARD, SUN CITY, CA 92585
Phone
(951) 679-8888
Hospital Type
Acute Care
Ownership
For-Profit
Emergency Services
Yes
—
Star rating not available
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 2 of 7 measures reported
2
Better No different Worse
30-day death rates for heart attack, heart failure, pneumonia, COPD, stroke, CABG, and kidney disease.
Safety of Care 2 of 8 measures reported
2
Better No different Worse
Healthcare-associated infections and patient safety indicators (PSI-90 composite).
Readmission 2 of 11 measures reported
1
1
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 6 of 12 measures reported
6 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)
— Not reported
Heart Failure
— Not reported
Pneumonia 47 discharges
1.0556 p81
COPD
— Not reported
Hip/Knee Replacement
— Not reported
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 below the national median, suggesting a negative payment adjustment.

22.3 p24
Total Performance Score
National median: 29.5
Safety 25% weight
16.7 p85
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
5.7 p25
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
0.0 p0
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: 1.0556
Value-Based Purchasing
22.3 TPS
Below national median
HAC Reduction
No Reduction
HAC Score: -0.4495

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 — Number of Cases Too Small —
Hybrid_HWM 4.80 No Different Than the National Rate 118
MORT_30_AMI — Number of Cases Too Small —
MORT_30_CABG — — —
MORT_30_COPD — Number of Cases Too Small —
MORT_30_HF — Number of Cases Too Small —
MORT_30_PN 16.50 No Different Than the National Rate 45
MORT_30_STK — Number of Cases Too Small —
PSI_03 0.53 No Different Than the National Rate 432
PSI_04 — Number of Cases Too Small —
PSI_06 0.20 No Different Than the National Rate 584
PSI_08 0.27 No Different Than the National Rate 576
PSI_09 2.66 No Different Than the National Rate 43
PSI_10 — Number of Cases Too Small —
PSI_11 — Number of Cases Too Small —
PSI_12 3.43 No Different Than the National Rate 48
PSI_13 — — —
PSI_14 — Number of Cases Too Small —
PSI_15 1.05 No Different Than the National Rate 41
PSI_90 0.97 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 66% —
H_COMP_1_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 11% —
H_COMP_1_U_P: Nurses "usually" communicated well 23% —
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 74% —
H_NURSE_RESPECT_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" treated them with courtesy and respect 7% —
H_NURSE_RESPECT_U_P: Nurses "usually" treated them with courtesy and respect 19% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_A_P: Nurses "always" listened carefully 62% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 11% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_U_P: Nurses "usually" listened carefully 27% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_A_P: Nurses "always" explained things so they could understand 61% —
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 25% —
H_COMP_2_A_P: Doctors "always" communicated well 68% —
H_COMP_2_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 14% —
H_COMP_2_U_P: Doctors "usually" communicated well 18% —
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 76% —
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" treated them with courtesy and respect 12% —
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_U_P: Doctors "usually" treated them with courtesy and respect 12% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_A_P: Doctors "always" listened carefully 67% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 14% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_U_P: Doctors "usually" listened carefully 19% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_A_P: Doctors "always" explained things so they could understand 63% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" explained things so they could understand 16% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_U_P: Doctors "usually" explained things so they could understand 21% —
H_COMP_5_A_P: Staff "always" explained 48% —
H_COMP_5_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained 31% —
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 60% —
H_MED_FOR_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained new medications 19% —
H_MED_FOR_U_P: Staff "usually" explained new medications 21% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_A_P: Staff "always" explained possible side effects 36% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained possible side effects 44% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_U_P: Staff "usually" explained possible side effects 20% —
H_COMP_6_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients this information 22% —
H_COMP_6_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients this information 78% —
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 20% —
H_DISCH_HELP_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about help after discharge 80% —
H_SYMPTOMS_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients information about possible symptoms 24% —
H_SYMPTOMS_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about possible symptoms 76% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_A_P: Room was "always" clean 60% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_SN_P: Room was "sometimes" or "never" clean 21% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_U_P: Room was "usually" clean 19% —
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 42% —
H_QUIET_HSP_SN_P: "Sometimes" or "never" quiet at night 22% —
H_QUIET_HSP_U_P: "Usually" quiet at night 36% —
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) 21% —
H_HSP_RATING_7_8: Patients who gave a rating of "7" or "8" (medium) 23% —
H_HSP_RATING_9_10: Patients who gave a rating of "9" or "10" (high) 56% —
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) 18% —
H_RECMND_DY: "YES", patients would definitely recommend the hospital 55% —
H_RECMND_PY: "YES", patients would probably recommend the hospital 27% —
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 — —
HAI_1_CIUPPER — —
HAI_1_DOPC 694.000 —
HAI_1_ELIGCASES 0.438 —
HAI_1_NUMERATOR 0.000 —
HAI_1_SIR — —
HAI_2_CILOWER — —
HAI_2_CIUPPER — —
HAI_2_DOPC 1373.000 —
HAI_2_ELIGCASES 0.710 —
HAI_2_NUMERATOR 0.000 —
HAI_2_SIR — —
HAI_3_CILOWER — —
HAI_3_CIUPPER — —
HAI_3_DOPC 8.000 —
HAI_3_ELIGCASES 0.236 —
HAI_3_NUMERATOR 0.000 —
HAI_3_SIR — —
HAI_4_CILOWER — —
HAI_4_CIUPPER — —
HAI_4_DOPC 17.000 —
HAI_4_ELIGCASES 0.135 —
HAI_4_NUMERATOR 0.000 —
HAI_4_SIR — —
HAI_5_CILOWER — —
HAI_5_CIUPPER — —
HAI_5_DOPC 14697.000 —
HAI_5_ELIGCASES 0.584 —
HAI_5_NUMERATOR 1.000 —
HAI_5_SIR — —
HAI_6_CILOWER 0.009 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_CIUPPER 0.890 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_DOPC 14697.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_ELIGCASES 5.543 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_NUMERATOR 1.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_SIR 0.180 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 low 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 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
HH_ORAE — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
IMM_3 39.0 Healthcare Personnel Vaccination
OP_18a 186.0 Emergency Department
OP_18b 183.0 Emergency Department
OP_18c 294.0 Emergency Department
OP_18d — Emergency Department
OP_22 2.0 Emergency Department
OP_23 — Emergency Department
OP_29 — Colonoscopy care
OP_31 — Cataract surgery outcome
OP_40 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SAFE_USE_OF_OPIOIDS — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SEP_1 56.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_3HR 60.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_6HR — Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_3HR 73.0 Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_6HR 100.0 Sepsis Care
STK_02 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_03 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_05 — 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 — Number of Cases Too Small
EDAC_30_HF — Number of Cases Too Small
EDAC_30_PN 135.60 More Days Than Average per 100 Discharges
Hybrid_HWR 16.20 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_32 — —
OP_35_ADM — —
OP_35_ED — —
OP_36 — Number of cases too small
READM_30_AMI — Number of Cases Too Small
READM_30_CABG — —
READM_30_COPD — Number of Cases Too Small
READM_30_HF — Number of Cases Too Small
READM_30_HIP_KNEE — Number of Cases Too Small
READM_30_PN 17.10 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
1.13

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 70 rows
Source Metric Value National Median Pctl. Raw key
Cost Report Cost-to-Charge Ratio 0.24 — metrics.cost_to_charge_ratio
Cost Report Current Ratio 0.28 — metrics.current_ratio
Cost Report Employees per Bed 3.13 — metrics.employees_per_bed
Cost Report fiscal_year 2,023 — fiscal_year
Cost Report Fund Balance ($) $-49,895,086 — metrics.fund_balance
Cost Report Net Income ($) $-5,102,706 — metrics.net_income
Cost Report Net Patient Revenue ($) $41,819,386 — metrics.net_patient_revenue
Cost Report Operating Margin (%) -12.5% — metrics.operating_margin
Cost Report Total Assets ($) $22,838,993 — metrics.total_assets
Cost Report Total Costs ($) $45,608,390 — metrics.total_costs
Cost Report Total Liabilities ($) $72,734,079 — metrics.total_liabilities
Cost Report Total Margin (%) -12.2% — metrics.total_margin
Cost Report Uncompensated Care (%) 2.4% — metrics.uncompensated_care_pct
General Information Address 28400 MCCALL BOULEVARD — Address
General Information City/Town SUN CITY — City/Town
General Information Count of Facility MORT Measures 2 — 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 2 — Count of Facility READM Measures
General Information Count of Facility Safety Measures 2 — Count of Facility Safety Measures
General Information Count of Facility TE Measures 6 — 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 2 — 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 1 — Count of READM Measures No Different
General Information Count of READM Measures Worse 1 — Count of READM Measures Worse
General Information Count of Safety Measures Better 0 — Count of Safety Measures Better
General Information Count of Safety Measures No Different 2 — Count of Safety Measures No Different
General Information Count of Safety Measures Worse 0 — Count of Safety Measures Worse
General Information County/Parish RIVERSIDE — County/Parish
General Information Emergency Services Yes — Emergency Services
General Information Facility ID 050684 — Facility ID
General Information Facility Name MENIFEE GLOBAL MEDICAL CENTER — Facility Name
General Information Hospital overall rating Not Available — Hospital overall rating
General Information Hospital overall rating footnote 16 — Hospital overall rating footnote
General Information Hospital Ownership Proprietary — 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 (951) 679-8888 — Telephone Number
General Information ZIP Code 92585 — ZIP Code
HAC Reduction Program fiscal_year 2,026 — fiscal_year
HAC Reduction Program measures — cauti — sir 0 — measures.cauti.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — cdi — sir 0.18 — measures.cdi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — mrsa — sir 0.90 — measures.mrsa.sir
HAC Reduction Program payment_reduction No — payment_reduction
HAC Reduction Program total_hac_score -0.45 — 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 1.13 — Value
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Excess readmission ratio 1.06 0.9955 p81 READM-30-PN-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Expected readmission rate 14.9% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of discharges 47 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of readmissions 11 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Predicted readmission rate 15.8% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Value-Based Purchasing Efficiency & Cost Reduction 0.00 2.50 p0 efficiency_score
Value-Based Purchasing Person & Community Engagement 5.67 8.75 p25 person_community_score
Value-Based Purchasing Safety 16.67 10.00 p85 safety_score
Value-Based Purchasing Total Performance Score 22.33 29.50 p24 total_performance_score
Methodology

Full methodology →