Hospital

ASANTE ROGUE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

CCN: 380018 · MEDFORD, OR 97504 · JACKSON County

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

Overview

Address
2825 E BARNETT ROAD, MEDFORD, OR 97504
Phone
(541) 789-7000
Hospital Type
Acute Care
Ownership
Non-Profit
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 6 of 8 measures reported
1
5
Better No different Worse
Healthcare-associated infections and patient safety indicators (PSI-90 composite).
Readmission 11 of 11 measures reported
2
9
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 12 of 12 measures reported
12 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) 347 discharges
0.9369 p15
Heart Failure 396 discharges
0.7880 p0
Pneumonia 253 discharges
0.8891 p3
COPD 64 discharges
0.9969 p49
Hip/Knee Replacement
— Not reported
CABG Surgery 243 discharges
0.7973 p1
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.

35.4 p70
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
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
5.3 p21
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
10.0 p76
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: 0.9969
Value-Based Purchasing
35.4 TPS
Above national median
HAC Reduction
No Reduction
HAC Score: 0.3514

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 4.40 No Different Than the National Rate 2,014
MORT_30_AMI 12.30 No Different Than the National Rate 306
MORT_30_CABG 2.60 No Different Than the National Rate 251
MORT_30_COPD 7.10 No Different Than the National Rate 60
MORT_30_HF 10.50 No Different Than the National Rate 360
MORT_30_PN 11.80 Better Than the National Rate 244
MORT_30_STK 14.10 No Different Than the National Rate 251
PSI_03 0.50 No Different Than the National Rate 6,730
PSI_04 180.29 No Different Than the National Rate 179
PSI_06 0.13 No Different Than the National Rate 7,066
PSI_08 0.23 No Different Than the National Rate 7,782
PSI_09 2.27 No Different Than the National Rate 2,377
PSI_10 2.34 No Different Than the National Rate 1,195
PSI_11 12.00 No Different Than the National Rate 1,111
PSI_12 2.47 No Different Than the National Rate 2,618
PSI_13 7.39 No Different Than the National Rate 1,142
PSI_14 2.33 No Different Than the National Rate 510
PSI_15 0.69 No Different Than the National Rate 1,701
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 77% —
H_COMP_1_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 3% —
H_COMP_1_U_P: Nurses "usually" communicated well 20% —
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 84% —
H_NURSE_RESPECT_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" treated them with courtesy and respect 1% —
H_NURSE_RESPECT_U_P: Nurses "usually" treated them with courtesy and respect 15% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_A_P: Nurses "always" listened carefully 73% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 4% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_U_P: Nurses "usually" listened carefully 23% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_A_P: Nurses "always" explained things so they could understand 73% —
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 22% —
H_COMP_2_A_P: Doctors "always" communicated well 78% —
H_COMP_2_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 4% —
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 — 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 77% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 4% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_U_P: Doctors "usually" listened carefully 19% —
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 58% —
H_COMP_5_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained 20% —
H_COMP_5_U_P: Staff "usually" explained 22% —
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 72% —
H_MED_FOR_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained new medications 11% —
H_MED_FOR_U_P: Staff "usually" explained new medications 17% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_A_P: Staff "always" explained possible side effects 44% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained possible side effects 30% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_U_P: Staff "usually" explained possible side effects 26% —
H_COMP_6_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients this information 14% —
H_COMP_6_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients this information 86% —
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 15% —
H_DISCH_HELP_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about help after discharge 85% —
H_SYMPTOMS_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients information about possible symptoms 13% —
H_SYMPTOMS_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about possible symptoms 87% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_A_P: Room was "always" clean 70% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_SN_P: Room was "sometimes" or "never" clean 9% —
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 — 3
H_QUIET_HSP_A_P: "Always" quiet at night 50% —
H_QUIET_HSP_SN_P: "Sometimes" or "never" quiet at night 13% —
H_QUIET_HSP_U_P: "Usually" quiet at night 37% —
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) 9% —
H_HSP_RATING_7_8: Patients who gave a rating of "7" or "8" (medium) 24% —
H_HSP_RATING_9_10: Patients who gave a rating of "9" or "10" (high) 67% —
H_HSP_RATING_LINEAR_SCORE: Overall hospital rating - linear mean score — —
H_HSP_RATING_STAR_RATING: Overall hospital rating - star rating — 3
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 74% —
H_RECMND_PY: "YES", patients would probably recommend the hospital 21% —
H_RECMND_LINEAR_SCORE: Recommend hospital - linear mean score — —
H_RECMND_STAR_RATING: Recommend hospital - star rating — 4
H_STAR_RATING: Summary star rating — 3

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 0.142 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_CIUPPER 1.081 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_DOPC 10778.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_ELIGCASES 8.927 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_NUMERATOR 4.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_SIR 0.448 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_CILOWER 0.592 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_CIUPPER 2.077 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_DOPC 9819.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_ELIGCASES 8.584 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_NUMERATOR 10.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_SIR 1.165 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_CILOWER 0.195 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_CIUPPER 2.091 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_DOPC 151.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_ELIGCASES 3.905 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_NUMERATOR 3.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_SIR 0.768 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_CILOWER — —
HAI_4_CIUPPER — —
HAI_4_DOPC 98.000 —
HAI_4_ELIGCASES 0.802 —
HAI_4_NUMERATOR 0.000 —
HAI_4_SIR — —
HAI_5_CILOWER 0.043 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_5_CIUPPER 0.838 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_5_DOPC 101580.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_5_ELIGCASES 7.889 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_5_NUMERATOR 2.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_5_SIR 0.254 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_CILOWER 0.136 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_CIUPPER 0.407 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_DOPC 91924.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_ELIGCASES 53.223 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_NUMERATOR 13.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_SIR 0.244 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 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 62.0 Healthcare Personnel Vaccination
OP_18a 233.0 Emergency Department
OP_18b 224.0 Emergency Department
OP_18c 271.0 Emergency Department
OP_18d 292.0 Emergency Department
OP_22 3.0 Emergency Department
OP_23 47.0 Emergency Department
OP_29 98.0 Colonoscopy care
OP_31 — Cataract surgery outcome
OP_40 0.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SAFE_USE_OF_OPIOIDS 13.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SEP_1 38.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_3HR 28.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_6HR — Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_3HR 59.0 Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_6HR 93.0 Sepsis Care
STK_02 94.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_03 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_05 90.0 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 7.70 Average Days per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_HF -31.60 Fewer Days Than Average per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_PN -13.20 Fewer Days Than Average per 100 Discharges
Hybrid_HWR 13.70 Better Than the National Rate
OP_32 12.70 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_35_ADM 9.40 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_35_ED 6.30 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_36 1.10 No Different than expected
READM_30_AMI 13.00 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_CABG 8.60 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_COPD 18.10 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_HF 15.70 Better Than the National Rate
READM_30_HIP_KNEE — Number of Cases Too Small
READM_30_PN 14.20 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
0.93

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 93 rows
Source Metric Value National Median Pctl. Raw key
Cost Report Cost-to-Charge Ratio 0.29 — metrics.cost_to_charge_ratio
Cost Report Current Ratio 7.14 — metrics.current_ratio
Cost Report Employees per Bed 2.34 — metrics.employees_per_bed
Cost Report fiscal_year 2,023 — fiscal_year
Cost Report Fund Balance ($) $400,596,372 — metrics.fund_balance
Cost Report Net Income ($) $4,356,683 — metrics.net_income
Cost Report Net Patient Revenue ($) $769,137,287 — metrics.net_patient_revenue
Cost Report Operating Margin (%) -0.7% — metrics.operating_margin
Cost Report Total Assets ($) $443,601,433 — metrics.total_assets
Cost Report Total Costs ($) $736,759,781 — metrics.total_costs
Cost Report Total Liabilities ($) $43,005,061 — metrics.total_liabilities
Cost Report Total Margin (%) 0.6% — metrics.total_margin
Cost Report Uncompensated Care (%) 0.8% — metrics.uncompensated_care_pct
General Information Address 2825 E BARNETT ROAD — Address
General Information City/Town MEDFORD — 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 11 — Count of Facility READM Measures
General Information Count of Facility Safety Measures 6 — Count of Facility Safety Measures
General Information Count of Facility TE Measures 12 — 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 2 — Count of READM Measures Better
General Information Count of READM Measures No Different 9 — 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 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 0 — Count of Safety Measures Worse
General Information County/Parish JACKSON — County/Parish
General Information Emergency Services Yes — Emergency Services
General Information Facility ID 380018 — Facility ID
General Information Facility Name ASANTE ROGUE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER — 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 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 OR — State
General Information TE Group Footnote — — TE Group Footnote
General Information TE Group Measure Count 12 — TE Group Measure Count
General Information Telephone Number (541) 789-7000 — Telephone Number
General Information ZIP Code 97504 — ZIP Code
HAC Reduction Program fiscal_year 2,026 — fiscal_year
HAC Reduction Program measures — cauti — sir 1.40 — measures.cauti.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — cdi — sir 0.13 — measures.cdi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — clabsi — sir 1.08 — measures.clabsi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — mrsa — sir 0.27 — measures.mrsa.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — ssi — sir 1.01 — measures.ssi.sir
HAC Reduction Program payment_reduction No — payment_reduction
HAC Reduction Program total_hac_score 0.35 — 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 0.93 — Value
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Excess readmission ratio 0.94 0.9995 p15 READM-30-AMI-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Expected readmission rate 10.8% — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Number of discharges 347 — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Number of readmissions 32 — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Predicted readmission rate 10.1% — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Excess readmission ratio 0.80 1.0000 p1 READM-30-CABG-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Expected readmission rate 10.2% — READM-30-CABG-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Number of discharges 243 — READM-30-CABG-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Number of readmissions 14 — READM-30-CABG-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Predicted readmission rate 8.1% — 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 19.2% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Number of discharges 64 — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Number of readmissions 12 — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Predicted readmission rate 19.1% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Excess readmission ratio 0.79 0.9983 p0 READM-30-HF-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Expected readmission rate 17.8% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of discharges 396 — READM-30-HF-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of readmissions 39 — READM-30-HF-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Predicted readmission rate 14.0% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Excess readmission ratio 0.89 0.9955 p3 READM-30-PN-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Expected readmission rate 14.0% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of discharges 253 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of readmissions 24 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Predicted readmission rate 12.5% — 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 10.00 2.50 p76 efficiency_score
Value-Based Purchasing Person & Community Engagement 5.25 8.75 p21 person_community_score
Value-Based Purchasing Safety 9.17 10.00 p41 safety_score
Value-Based Purchasing Total Performance Score 35.42 29.50 p70 total_performance_score
Methodology

Full methodology →