Hospital

O U MEDICAL CENTER

CCN: 370093 · OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73104 · OKLAHOMA County

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

Overview

Address
700 NE 13TH STREET, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73104
Phone
(405) 271-5911
Hospital Type
Acute Care
Ownership
Non-Profit
Emergency Services
Yes
Birthing Friendly
Yes
2 /5
★★★★★
CMS Overall Rating
p7
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
1
5
2
Better No different Worse
Healthcare-associated infections and patient safety indicators (PSI-90 composite).
Readmission 10 of 11 measures reported
1
7
2
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) 111 discharges
0.9967 p47
Heart Failure 263 discharges
1.0041 p53
Pneumonia 318 discharges
1.0222 p66
COPD 160 discharges
0.9998 p52
Hip/Knee Replacement
0.9716 p43
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.

14.6 p4
Total Performance Score
National median: 29.5
Clinical Outcomes 25% weight
1.5 p17
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
9.6 p45
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
3.5 p8
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: 1.0222
Value-Based Purchasing
14.6 TPS
Below national median
HAC Reduction
Payment Reduced
HAC Score: 0.8647

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 94
Hybrid_HWM 3.90 No Different Than the National Rate 2,075
MORT_30_AMI 14.10 No Different Than the National Rate 121
MORT_30_CABG — Number of Cases Too Small —
MORT_30_COPD 10.00 No Different Than the National Rate 134
MORT_30_HF 10.70 No Different Than the National Rate 230
MORT_30_PN 18.60 No Different Than the National Rate 306
MORT_30_STK 15.90 Worse Than the National Rate 355
PSI_03 0.51 No Different Than the National Rate 9,064
PSI_04 180.85 No Different Than the National Rate 284
PSI_06 0.30 No Different Than the National Rate 9,924
PSI_08 0.49 Worse Than the National Rate 10,386
PSI_09 2.63 No Different Than the National Rate 3,335
PSI_10 2.28 No Different Than the National Rate 1,346
PSI_11 19.55 Worse Than the National Rate 1,302
PSI_12 6.71 Worse Than the National Rate 3,400
PSI_13 6.53 No Different Than the National Rate 1,304
PSI_14 1.53 No Different Than the National Rate 942
PSI_15 1.46 No Different Than the National Rate 2,646
PSI_90 1.50 Worse 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 71% —
H_COMP_1_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 8% —
H_COMP_1_U_P: Nurses "usually" communicated well 21% —
H_COMP_1_LINEAR_SCORE: Nurse communication - linear mean score — —
H_COMP_1_STAR_RATING: Nurse communication - star rating — 2
H_NURSE_RESPECT_A_P: Nurses "always" treated them with courtesy and respect 80% —
H_NURSE_RESPECT_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" treated them with courtesy and respect 5% —
H_NURSE_RESPECT_U_P: Nurses "usually" treated them with courtesy and respect 15% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_A_P: Nurses "always" listened carefully 68% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 9% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_U_P: Nurses "usually" listened carefully 23% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_A_P: Nurses "always" explained things so they could understand 66% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" explained things so they could understand 10% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_U_P: Nurses "usually" explained things so they could understand 24% —
H_COMP_2_A_P: Doctors "always" communicated well 74% —
H_COMP_2_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 8% —
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 — 2
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_A_P: Doctors "always" treated them with courtesy and respect 82% —
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" treated them with courtesy and respect 5% —
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_U_P: Doctors "usually" treated them with courtesy and respect 13% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_A_P: Doctors "always" listened carefully 73% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 9% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_U_P: Doctors "usually" listened carefully 18% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_A_P: Doctors "always" explained things so they could understand 69% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" explained things so they could understand 9% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_U_P: Doctors "usually" explained things so they could understand 22% —
H_COMP_5_A_P: Staff "always" explained 52% —
H_COMP_5_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained 28% —
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 — 1
H_MED_FOR_A_P: Staff "always" explained new medications 64% —
H_MED_FOR_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained new medications 16% —
H_MED_FOR_U_P: Staff "usually" explained new medications 20% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_A_P: Staff "always" explained possible side effects 39% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained possible side effects 40% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_U_P: Staff "usually" explained possible side effects 21% —
H_COMP_6_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients this information 19% —
H_COMP_6_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients this information 81% —
H_COMP_6_LINEAR_SCORE: Discharge information - linear mean score — —
H_COMP_6_STAR_RATING: Discharge information - star rating — 2
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 18% —
H_SYMPTOMS_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about possible symptoms 82% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_A_P: Room was "always" clean 65% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_SN_P: Room was "sometimes" or "never" clean 14% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_U_P: Room was "usually" clean 21% —
H_CLEAN_LINEAR_SCORE: Cleanliness - linear mean score — —
H_CLEAN_STAR_RATING: Cleanliness - star rating — 2
H_QUIET_HSP_A_P: "Always" quiet at night 54% —
H_QUIET_HSP_SN_P: "Sometimes" or "never" quiet at night 15% —
H_QUIET_HSP_U_P: "Usually" quiet at night 31% —
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) 15% —
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) 62% —
H_HSP_RATING_LINEAR_SCORE: Overall hospital rating - linear mean score — —
H_HSP_RATING_STAR_RATING: Overall hospital rating - star rating — 2
H_RECMND_DN: "NO", patients would not recommend the hospital (they probably would not or definitely would not recommend it) 12% —
H_RECMND_DY: "YES", patients would definitely recommend the hospital 63% —
H_RECMND_PY: "YES", patients would probably recommend the hospital 25% —
H_RECMND_LINEAR_SCORE: Recommend hospital - linear mean score — —
H_RECMND_STAR_RATING: Recommend hospital - star rating — 2
H_STAR_RATING: Summary star rating — 2

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 0.323 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_1_CIUPPER 0.690 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_1_DOPC 48044.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_1_ELIGCASES 56.160 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_1_NUMERATOR 27.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_1_SIR 0.481 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_CILOWER 0.203 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_CIUPPER 0.637 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_DOPC 21660.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_ELIGCASES 32.006 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_NUMERATOR 12.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_SIR 0.375 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_3_CILOWER 0.553 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_CIUPPER 1.734 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_DOPC 412.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_ELIGCASES 11.766 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_NUMERATOR 12.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_SIR 1.020 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_CILOWER 1.617 Worse than the National Benchmark
HAI_4_CIUPPER 5.673 Worse than the National Benchmark
HAI_4_DOPC 301.000 Worse than the National Benchmark
HAI_4_ELIGCASES 3.142 Worse than the National Benchmark
HAI_4_NUMERATOR 10.000 Worse than the National Benchmark
HAI_4_SIR 3.183 Worse than the National Benchmark
HAI_5_CILOWER 0.388 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_CIUPPER 1.116 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_DOPC 253604.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_ELIGCASES 20.549 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_NUMERATOR 14.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_SIR 0.681 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_6_CILOWER 0.274 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_CIUPPER 0.492 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_DOPC 215845.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_ELIGCASES 121.398 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_NUMERATOR 45.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_SIR 0.371 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 95.0 Healthcare Personnel Vaccination
OP_18a 199.0 Emergency Department
OP_18b 198.0 Emergency Department
OP_18c — Emergency Department
OP_18d — Emergency Department
OP_22 2.0 Emergency Department
OP_23 — Emergency Department
OP_29 96.0 Colonoscopy care
OP_31 — Cataract surgery outcome
OP_40 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SAFE_USE_OF_OPIOIDS 13.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SEP_1 70.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_3HR 84.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_6HR 96.0 Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_3HR 87.0 Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_6HR 89.0 Sepsis Care
STK_02 98.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_03 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_05 85.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
VTE_1 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
VTE_2 94.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure

Unplanned Hospital Visits

Readmission and ED return rates within 30 days of discharge.

Measure Score vs. National
EDAC_30_AMI -14.80 Average Days per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_HF 7.60 Average Days per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_PN 31.40 More Days Than Average per 100 Discharges
Hybrid_HWR 16.30 Worse Than the National Rate
OP_32 12.40 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_35_ADM 9.80 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_35_ED 6.60 Worse Than the National Rate
OP_36 1.00 No Different than expected
READM_30_AMI 13.50 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_CABG — Number of Cases Too Small
READM_30_COPD 18.10 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_HF 19.90 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_HIP_KNEE 4.70 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_PN 16.50 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
1.08

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 0.15 — metrics.cost_to_charge_ratio
Cost Report Current Ratio 2.63 — metrics.current_ratio
Cost Report Employees per Bed 6.40 — metrics.employees_per_bed
Cost Report fiscal_year 2,024 — fiscal_year
Cost Report Fund Balance ($) $528,930,795 — metrics.fund_balance
Cost Report Net Income ($) $190,311,098 — metrics.net_income
Cost Report Net Patient Revenue ($) $1,965,959,449 — metrics.net_patient_revenue
Cost Report Operating Margin (%) 7.5% — metrics.operating_margin
Cost Report Total Assets ($) $85,314,853,637 — metrics.total_assets
Cost Report Total Costs ($) $1,731,174,557 — metrics.total_costs
Cost Report Total Liabilities ($) $84,785,922,842 — metrics.total_liabilities
Cost Report Total Margin (%) 9.5% — metrics.total_margin
Cost Report Uncompensated Care (%) 4.7% — metrics.uncompensated_care_pct
General Information Address 700 NE 13TH STREET — Address
General Information City/Town OKLAHOMA CITY — 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 10 — 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 1 — Count of READM Measures Better
General Information Count of READM Measures No Different 7 — Count of READM Measures No Different
General Information Count of READM Measures Worse 2 — 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 5 — Count of Safety Measures No Different
General Information Count of Safety Measures Worse 2 — Count of Safety Measures Worse
General Information County/Parish OKLAHOMA — County/Parish
General Information Emergency Services Yes — Emergency Services
General Information Facility ID 370093 — Facility ID
General Information Facility Name O U MEDICAL CENTER — Facility Name
General Information Hospital overall rating 2 — 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 OK — State
General Information TE Group Footnote — — TE Group Footnote
General Information TE Group Measure Count 12 — TE Group Measure Count
General Information Telephone Number (405) 271-5911 — Telephone Number
General Information ZIP Code 73104 — ZIP Code
HAC Reduction Program fiscal_year 2,026 — fiscal_year
HAC Reduction Program measures — cauti — sir 0.74 — measures.cauti.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — cdi — sir 0.36 — measures.cdi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — clabsi — sir 0.89 — measures.clabsi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — mrsa — sir 0.68 — measures.mrsa.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — ssi — sir 1.84 — measures.ssi.sir
HAC Reduction Program payment_reduction Yes — payment_reduction
HAC Reduction Program total_hac_score 0.86 — 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 1.08 — Value
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Excess readmission ratio 1.00 0.9995 p47 READM-30-AMI-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Expected readmission rate 14.6% — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Number of discharges 111 — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Number of readmissions 16 — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Predicted readmission rate 14.6% — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Excess readmission ratio 1.00 0.9969 p52 READM-30-COPD-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Expected readmission rate 19.4% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Number of discharges 160 — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Number of readmissions 31 — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Predicted readmission rate 19.4% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Excess readmission ratio 1.00 0.9983 p53 READM-30-HF-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Expected readmission rate 20.7% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of discharges 263 — 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 20.8% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Excess readmission ratio 0.97 0.9916 p43 READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Expected readmission rate 5.0% — READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Predicted readmission rate 4.9% — READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Excess readmission ratio 1.02 0.9955 p66 READM-30-PN-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Expected readmission rate 17.4% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of discharges 318 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of readmissions 58 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Predicted readmission rate 17.8% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Value-Based Purchasing Clinical Outcomes 1.50 5.00 p17 clinical_outcomes_score
Value-Based Purchasing Efficiency & Cost Reduction 0.00 2.50 p0 efficiency_score
Value-Based Purchasing Person & Community Engagement 3.50 8.75 p8 person_community_score
Value-Based Purchasing Safety 9.58 10.00 p45 safety_score
Value-Based Purchasing Total Performance Score 14.58 29.50 p4 total_performance_score
Methodology

Full methodology →