Hospital

ADVOCATE SHERMAN HOSPITAL

CCN: 140030 · ELGIN, IL 60123 · KANE County

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

Overview

Address
1425 NORTH RANDALL ROAD, ELGIN, IL 60123
Phone
(847) 742-9800
Hospital Type
Acute Care
Ownership
Non-Profit
Emergency Services
Yes
Birthing Friendly
Yes
5 /5
★★★★★
CMS Overall Rating
p89
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 7 of 7 measures reported
2
5
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
2
5
Better No different Worse
Healthcare-associated infections and patient safety indicators (PSI-90 composite).
Readmission 10 of 11 measures reported
10
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 11 of 12 measures reported
11 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) 156 discharges
1.0607 p83
Heart Failure 721 discharges
1.0347 p72
Pneumonia 547 discharges
1.0392 p75
COPD 208 discharges
0.9962 p49
Hip/Knee Replacement
— Not reported
CABG Surgery
1.1528 p94
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.

34.7 p68
Total Performance Score
National median: 29.5
Clinical Outcomes 25% weight
13.0 p91
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
9.2 p41
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
12.5 p74
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: 1.1528
Value-Based Purchasing
34.7 TPS
Above national median
HAC Reduction
No Reduction
HAC Score: -0.2428

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 3.40 Better Than the National Rate 1,855
MORT_30_AMI 11.60 No Different Than the National Rate 155
MORT_30_CABG 2.20 No Different Than the National Rate 35
MORT_30_COPD 9.00 No Different Than the National Rate 181
MORT_30_HF 8.20 Better Than the National Rate 615
MORT_30_PN 13.60 No Different Than the National Rate 530
MORT_30_STK 10.90 No Different Than the National Rate 125
PSI_03 0.16 No Different Than the National Rate 5,971
PSI_04 140.48 No Different Than the National Rate 48
PSI_06 0.29 No Different Than the National Rate 7,385
PSI_08 0.25 No Different Than the National Rate 7,502
PSI_09 1.75 No Different Than the National Rate 1,125
PSI_10 2.39 No Different Than the National Rate 473
PSI_11 8.77 No Different Than the National Rate 477
PSI_12 3.24 No Different Than the National Rate 1,289
PSI_13 3.95 No Different Than the National Rate 487
PSI_14 1.61 No Different Than the National Rate 289
PSI_15 1.06 No Different Than the National Rate 1,133
PSI_90 0.82 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 80% —
H_COMP_1_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 3% —
H_COMP_1_U_P: Nurses "usually" communicated well 17% —
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 78% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 3% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_U_P: Nurses "usually" listened carefully 19% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_A_P: Nurses "always" explained things so they could understand 76% —
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 19% —
H_COMP_2_A_P: Doctors "always" communicated well 77% —
H_COMP_2_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 6% —
H_COMP_2_U_P: Doctors "usually" communicated well 17% —
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 84% —
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" treated them with courtesy and respect 4% —
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_U_P: Doctors "usually" treated them with courtesy and respect 12% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_A_P: Doctors "always" listened carefully 75% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 6% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_U_P: Doctors "usually" listened carefully 19% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_A_P: Doctors "always" explained things so they could understand 71% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" explained things so they could understand 7% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_U_P: Doctors "usually" explained things so they could understand 22% —
H_COMP_5_A_P: Staff "always" explained 61% —
H_COMP_5_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained 20% —
H_COMP_5_U_P: Staff "usually" explained 19% —
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 76% —
H_MED_FOR_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained new medications 8% —
H_MED_FOR_U_P: Staff "usually" explained new medications 16% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_A_P: Staff "always" explained possible side effects 45% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained possible side effects 32% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_U_P: Staff "usually" explained possible side effects 23% —
H_COMP_6_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients this information 10% —
H_COMP_6_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients this information 90% —
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 12% —
H_DISCH_HELP_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about help after discharge 88% —
H_SYMPTOMS_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients information about possible symptoms 9% —
H_SYMPTOMS_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about possible symptoms 91% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_A_P: Room was "always" clean 79% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_SN_P: Room was "sometimes" or "never" clean 5% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_U_P: Room was "usually" clean 16% —
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 60% —
H_QUIET_HSP_SN_P: "Sometimes" or "never" quiet at night 7% —
H_QUIET_HSP_U_P: "Usually" quiet at night 33% —
H_QUIET_LINEAR_SCORE: Quietness - linear mean score — —
H_QUIET_STAR_RATING: Quietness - star rating — 4
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) 20% —
H_HSP_RATING_9_10: Patients who gave a rating of "9" or "10" (high) 73% —
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 74% —
H_RECMND_PY: "YES", patients would probably recommend the hospital 22% —
H_RECMND_LINEAR_SCORE: Recommend hospital - linear mean score — —
H_RECMND_STAR_RATING: Recommend hospital - star rating — 4
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 0.410 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_CIUPPER 2.480 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_DOPC 5725.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_ELIGCASES 4.468 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_NUMERATOR 5.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_SIR 1.119 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_CILOWER 0.084 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_CIUPPER 1.649 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_DOPC 4586.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_ELIGCASES 4.006 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_NUMERATOR 2.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_SIR 0.499 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_CILOWER 0.262 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_CIUPPER 2.800 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_DOPC 116.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_ELIGCASES 2.916 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_NUMERATOR 3.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_SIR 1.029 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_CILOWER 0.296 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_CIUPPER 5.842 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_DOPC 130.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_ELIGCASES 1.131 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_NUMERATOR 2.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_SIR 1.768 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_CILOWER N/A No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_CIUPPER 1.154 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_DOPC 69073.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_ELIGCASES 2.597 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 0.176 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_CIUPPER 0.619 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_DOPC 64252.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_ELIGCASES 28.804 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_NUMERATOR 10.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_SIR 0.347 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 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
HH_ORAE — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
IMM_3 86.0 Healthcare Personnel Vaccination
OP_18a 197.0 Emergency Department
OP_18b 188.0 Emergency Department
OP_18c 338.0 Emergency Department
OP_18d — Emergency Department
OP_22 1.0 Emergency Department
OP_23 78.0 Emergency Department
OP_29 99.0 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 70.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_3HR 76.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_6HR 89.0 Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_3HR 84.0 Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_6HR 97.0 Sepsis Care
STK_02 98.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_03 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_05 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
VTE_1 89.0 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 13.30 Average Days per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_HF -2.60 Average Days per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_PN 4.00 Average Days per 100 Discharges
Hybrid_HWR 15.40 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_32 12.60 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_35_ADM — Number of Cases Too Small
OP_35_ED — Number of Cases Too Small
OP_36 0.90 No Different than expected
READM_30_AMI 14.30 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_CABG 12.20 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_COPD 18.10 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_HF 20.30 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_HIP_KNEE — Number of Cases Too Small
READM_30_PN 16.60 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
0.99

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 0.19 — metrics.cost_to_charge_ratio
Cost Report Current Ratio 1.11 — metrics.current_ratio
Cost Report Employees per Bed 4.13 — metrics.employees_per_bed
Cost Report fiscal_year 2,023 — fiscal_year
Cost Report Fund Balance ($) $14,259,054,000 — metrics.fund_balance
Cost Report Net Income ($) $13,939,276 — metrics.net_income
Cost Report Net Patient Revenue ($) $367,034,513 — metrics.net_patient_revenue
Cost Report Operating Margin (%) 2.8% — metrics.operating_margin
Cost Report Total Assets ($) $22,997,820,000 — metrics.total_assets
Cost Report Total Costs ($) $316,542,488 — metrics.total_costs
Cost Report Total Liabilities ($) $8,738,766,000 — metrics.total_liabilities
Cost Report Total Margin (%) 3.8% — metrics.total_margin
Cost Report Uncompensated Care (%) 3.1% — metrics.uncompensated_care_pct
General Information Address 1425 NORTH RANDALL ROAD — Address
General Information City/Town ELGIN — City/Town
General Information Count of Facility MORT Measures 7 — 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 11 — Count of Facility TE Measures
General Information Count of MORT Measures Better 2 — Count of MORT Measures Better
General Information Count of MORT Measures No Different 5 — 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 10 — 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 0 — Count of Safety Measures Worse
General Information County/Parish KANE — County/Parish
General Information Emergency Services Yes — Emergency Services
General Information Facility ID 140030 — Facility ID
General Information Facility Name ADVOCATE SHERMAN HOSPITAL — Facility Name
General Information Hospital overall rating 5 — 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 IL — State
General Information TE Group Footnote — — TE Group Footnote
General Information TE Group Measure Count 12 — TE Group Measure Count
General Information Telephone Number (847) 742-9800 — Telephone Number
General Information ZIP Code 60123 — ZIP Code
HAC Reduction Program fiscal_year 2,026 — fiscal_year
HAC Reduction Program measures — cauti — sir 0.66 — measures.cauti.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — cdi — sir 0.34 — measures.cdi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — clabsi — sir 0.48 — measures.clabsi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — mrsa — sir 0.21 — measures.mrsa.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — ssi — sir 1.38 — measures.ssi.sir
HAC Reduction Program payment_reduction No — payment_reduction
HAC Reduction Program total_hac_score -0.24 — 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 0.99 — Value
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Excess readmission ratio 1.06 0.9995 p83 READM-30-AMI-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Expected readmission rate 12.7% — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Number of discharges 156 — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Number of readmissions 24 — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Predicted readmission rate 13.5% — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Excess readmission ratio 1.15 1.0000 p94 READM-30-CABG-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Expected readmission rate 10.6% — READM-30-CABG-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Predicted readmission rate 12.2% — READM-30-CABG-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Excess readmission ratio 1.00 0.9969 p49 READM-30-COPD-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Expected readmission rate 18.5% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Number of discharges 208 — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Number of readmissions 38 — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Predicted readmission rate 18.4% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Excess readmission ratio 1.03 0.9983 p72 READM-30-HF-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Expected readmission rate 19.4% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of discharges 721 — READM-30-HF-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of readmissions 147 — READM-30-HF-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Predicted readmission rate 20.0% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Excess readmission ratio 1.04 0.9955 p75 READM-30-PN-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Expected readmission rate 15.7% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of discharges 547 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of readmissions 92 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Predicted readmission rate 16.3% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Value-Based Purchasing Clinical Outcomes 13.00 5.00 p91 clinical_outcomes_score
Value-Based Purchasing Efficiency & Cost Reduction 0.00 2.50 p0 efficiency_score
Value-Based Purchasing Person & Community Engagement 12.50 8.75 p74 person_community_score
Value-Based Purchasing Safety 9.17 10.00 p41 safety_score
Value-Based Purchasing Total Performance Score 34.67 29.50 p68 total_performance_score
Methodology

Full methodology →