Hospital

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY HOSPITAL

CCN: 180067 · LEXINGTON, KY 40536 · FAYETTE County

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

Overview

Address
800 ROSE STREET, LEXINGTON, KY 40536
Phone
(859) 257-2278
Hospital Type
Acute Care
Ownership
Government (State)
Emergency Services
Yes
Birthing Friendly
Yes
4 /5
★★★★★
CMS Overall Rating
p63
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
1
6
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
4
1
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 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 does not have excess readmissions triggering HRRP penalties.
Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) 161 discharges
0.8588 p1
Heart Failure 312 discharges
0.9051 p6
Pneumonia 259 discharges
0.9156 p7
COPD 111 discharges
0.9506 p11
Hip/Knee Replacement
— Not reported
CABG Surgery
0.8426 p4
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.

27.8 p44
Total Performance Score
National median: 29.5
Clinical Outcomes 25% weight
10.0 p81
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
4.6 p11
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
13.3 p78
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)
Not Penalized
Worst ERR: 0.9506
Value-Based Purchasing
27.8 TPS
Below national median
HAC Reduction
Payment Reduced
HAC Score: 0.3966

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 3.60 No Different Than the National Rate 1,878
MORT_30_AMI 12.40 No Different Than the National Rate 91
MORT_30_CABG 2.60 No Different Than the National Rate 133
MORT_30_COPD 7.40 No Different Than the National Rate 105
MORT_30_HF 11.70 No Different Than the National Rate 244
MORT_30_PN 12.00 Better Than the National Rate 239
MORT_30_STK 13.20 No Different Than the National Rate 333
PSI_03 0.46 No Different Than the National Rate 9,417
PSI_04 128.38 Better Than the National Rate 297
PSI_06 0.17 No Different Than the National Rate 9,693
PSI_08 0.32 No Different Than the National Rate 10,471
PSI_09 2.53 No Different Than the National Rate 3,449
PSI_10 1.28 No Different Than the National Rate 1,719
PSI_11 11.50 No Different Than the National Rate 1,503
PSI_12 3.60 No Different Than the National Rate 3,725
PSI_13 6.85 No Different Than the National Rate 1,691
PSI_14 1.62 No Different Than the National Rate 916
PSI_15 1.51 No Different Than the National Rate 2,815
PSI_90 1.06 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 4% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_U_P: Nurses "usually" explained things so they could understand 20% —
H_COMP_2_A_P: Doctors "always" communicated well 81% —
H_COMP_2_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 4% —
H_COMP_2_U_P: Doctors "usually" communicated well 15% —
H_COMP_2_LINEAR_SCORE: Doctor communication - linear mean score — —
H_COMP_2_STAR_RATING: Doctor communication - star rating — 4
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_A_P: Doctors "always" treated them with courtesy and respect 89% —
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 8% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_A_P: Doctors "always" listened carefully 80% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 4% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_U_P: Doctors "usually" listened carefully 16% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_A_P: Doctors "always" explained things so they could understand 75% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" explained things so they could understand 5% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_U_P: Doctors "usually" explained things so they could understand 20% —
H_COMP_5_A_P: Staff "always" explained 62% —
H_COMP_5_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained 18% —
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 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 47% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained possible side effects 28% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_U_P: Staff "usually" explained possible side effects 25% —
H_COMP_6_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients this information 13% —
H_COMP_6_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients this information 87% —
H_COMP_6_LINEAR_SCORE: Discharge information - linear mean score — —
H_COMP_6_STAR_RATING: Discharge information - star rating — 3
H_DISCH_HELP_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients information about help after discharge 14% —
H_DISCH_HELP_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about help after discharge 86% —
H_SYMPTOMS_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients information about possible symptoms 11% —
H_SYMPTOMS_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about possible symptoms 89% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_A_P: Room was "always" clean 67% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_SN_P: Room was "sometimes" or "never" clean 11% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_U_P: Room was "usually" clean 22% —
H_CLEAN_LINEAR_SCORE: Cleanliness - linear mean score — —
H_CLEAN_STAR_RATING: Cleanliness - star rating — 3
H_QUIET_HSP_A_P: "Always" quiet at night 60% —
H_QUIET_HSP_SN_P: "Sometimes" or "never" quiet at night 10% —
H_QUIET_HSP_U_P: "Usually" quiet at night 30% —
H_QUIET_LINEAR_SCORE: Quietness - linear mean score — —
H_QUIET_STAR_RATING: Quietness - star rating — 3
H_HSP_RATING_0_6: Patients who gave a rating of "6" or lower (low) 8% —
H_HSP_RATING_7_8: Patients who gave a rating of "7" or "8" (medium) 18% —
H_HSP_RATING_9_10: Patients who gave a rating of "9" or "10" (high) 74% —
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) 5% —
H_RECMND_DY: "YES", patients would definitely recommend the hospital 76% —
H_RECMND_PY: "YES", patients would probably recommend the hospital 19% —
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 0.655 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_CIUPPER 1.211 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_DOPC 38917.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_ELIGCASES 45.496 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_NUMERATOR 41.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_SIR 0.901 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_CILOWER 0.218 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_CIUPPER 0.527 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_DOPC 34072.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_ELIGCASES 57.556 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_NUMERATOR 20.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_SIR 0.347 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_3_CILOWER 0.662 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_CIUPPER 1.455 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_DOPC 871.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_ELIGCASES 24.987 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_NUMERATOR 25.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_SIR 1.001 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_CILOWER 0.215 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_CIUPPER 1.629 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_DOPC 612.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_ELIGCASES 5.923 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_NUMERATOR 4.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_SIR 0.675 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_CILOWER 0.837 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_CIUPPER 1.547 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_DOPC 361436.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_ELIGCASES 35.607 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_NUMERATOR 41.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_SIR 1.151 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_6_CILOWER 0.241 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_CIUPPER 0.416 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_DOPC 325077.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_ELIGCASES 162.705 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_NUMERATOR 52.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_SIR 0.320 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 228.0 Emergency Department
OP_18b 225.0 Emergency Department
OP_18c 251.0 Emergency Department
OP_18d — Emergency Department
OP_22 1.0 Emergency Department
OP_23 — Emergency Department
OP_29 92.0 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 22.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_3HR 39.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_6HR — Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_3HR 51.0 Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_6HR 44.0 Sepsis Care
STK_02 96.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_03 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_05 89.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
VTE_1 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
VTE_2 96.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure

Unplanned Hospital Visits

Readmission and ED return rates within 30 days of discharge.

Measure Score vs. National
EDAC_30_AMI -11.40 Average Days per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_HF -31.20 Fewer Days Than Average per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_PN -18.60 Fewer Days Than Average per 100 Discharges
Hybrid_HWR 15.20 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_32 14.40 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_35_ADM 13.30 Worse Than the National Rate
OP_35_ED 5.20 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_36 0.90 No Different than expected
READM_30_AMI 11.90 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_CABG 8.90 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_COPD 17.40 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_HF 17.80 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_HIP_KNEE — Number of Cases Too Small
READM_30_PN 14.90 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
1.02

Financial Health (Cost Report — FY 2024)

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 0.30 — metrics.cost_to_charge_ratio
Cost Report Current Ratio 7.36 — metrics.current_ratio
Cost Report Employees per Bed 13.20 — metrics.employees_per_bed
Cost Report fiscal_year 2,024 — fiscal_year
Cost Report Fund Balance ($) $3,427,549,168 — metrics.fund_balance
Cost Report Net Income ($) $554,427,354 — metrics.net_income
Cost Report Net Patient Revenue ($) $2,322,220,312 — metrics.net_patient_revenue
Cost Report Operating Margin (%) -20.2% — metrics.operating_margin
Cost Report Total Assets ($) $4,252,531,339 — metrics.total_assets
Cost Report Total Costs ($) $2,789,145,952 — metrics.total_costs
Cost Report Total Liabilities ($) $824,982,171 — metrics.total_liabilities
Cost Report Total Margin (%) 16.6% — metrics.total_margin
Cost Report Uncompensated Care (%) 1.9% — metrics.uncompensated_care_pct
General Information Address 800 ROSE STREET — Address
General Information City/Town LEXINGTON — 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 10 — Count of Facility TE Measures
General Information Count of MORT Measures Better 1 — 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 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 4 — Count of Safety Measures No Different
General Information Count of Safety Measures Worse 1 — Count of Safety Measures Worse
General Information County/Parish FAYETTE — County/Parish
General Information Emergency Services Yes — Emergency Services
General Information Facility ID 180067 — Facility ID
General Information Facility Name UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY HOSPITAL — Facility Name
General Information Hospital overall rating 4 — Hospital overall rating
General Information Hospital overall rating footnote — — Hospital overall rating footnote
General Information Hospital Ownership Government - State — 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 KY — State
General Information TE Group Footnote — — TE Group Footnote
General Information TE Group Measure Count 12 — TE Group Measure Count
General Information Telephone Number (859) 257-2278 — Telephone Number
General Information ZIP Code 40536 — ZIP Code
HAC Reduction Program fiscal_year 2,026 — fiscal_year
HAC Reduction Program measures — cauti — sir 0.35 — measures.cauti.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — cdi — sir 0.32 — measures.cdi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — clabsi — sir 0.97 — measures.clabsi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — mrsa — sir 1.33 — measures.mrsa.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — ssi — sir 1.07 — measures.ssi.sir
HAC Reduction Program payment_reduction Yes — payment_reduction
HAC Reduction Program total_hac_score 0.40 — 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 1.02 — Value
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Excess readmission ratio 0.86 0.9995 p1 READM-30-AMI-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Expected readmission rate 14.2% — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Number of discharges 161 — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Number of readmissions 12 — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Predicted readmission rate 12.2% — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Excess readmission ratio 0.84 1.0000 p4 READM-30-CABG-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Expected readmission rate 10.4% — READM-30-CABG-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Predicted readmission rate 8.8% — READM-30-CABG-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Excess readmission ratio 0.95 0.9969 p11 READM-30-COPD-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Expected readmission rate 21.7% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Number of discharges 111 — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Number of readmissions 19 — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Predicted readmission rate 20.7% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Excess readmission ratio 0.91 0.9983 p6 READM-30-HF-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Expected readmission rate 22.1% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of discharges 312 — READM-30-HF-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of readmissions 55 — 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 0.92 0.9955 p7 READM-30-PN-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Expected readmission rate 19.0% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of discharges 259 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of readmissions 39 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Predicted readmission rate 17.4% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Value-Based Purchasing Clinical Outcomes 10.00 5.00 p81 clinical_outcomes_score
Value-Based Purchasing Efficiency & Cost Reduction 0.00 2.50 p0 efficiency_score
Value-Based Purchasing Person & Community Engagement 13.25 8.75 p78 person_community_score
Value-Based Purchasing Safety 4.58 10.00 p11 safety_score
Value-Based Purchasing Total Performance Score 27.83 29.50 p44 total_performance_score
Methodology

Full methodology →