Hospital

PRISMA HEALTH RICHLAND HOSPITAL

CCN: 420018 · COLUMBIA, SC 29203 · RICHLAND County

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

Overview

Address
5 MEDICAL PARK, COLUMBIA, SC 29203
Phone
(803) 296-2548
Hospital Type
Acute Care
Ownership
Non-Profit
Emergency Services
Yes
Birthing Friendly
Yes
3 /5
★★★★★
CMS Overall Rating
p30
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
7
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
1
6
Better No different Worse
Healthcare-associated infections and patient safety indicators (PSI-90 composite).
Readmission 8 of 11 measures reported
7
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 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) 378 discharges
1.0351 p71
Heart Failure 780 discharges
0.9309 p11
Pneumonia 272 discharges
0.9493 p19
COPD 58 discharges
1.0470 p84
Hip/Knee Replacement
— Not reported
CABG Surgery 149 discharges
0.9685 p37
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.

21.0 p19
Total Performance Score
National median: 29.5
Clinical Outcomes 25% weight
7.0 p65
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
7.5 p27
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
6.5 p31
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: 1.0470
Value-Based Purchasing
21.0 TPS
Below national median
HAC Reduction
No Reduction
HAC Score: 0.2967

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 4.10 No Different Than the National Rate 2,002
MORT_30_AMI 11.70 No Different Than the National Rate 342
MORT_30_CABG 3.00 No Different Than the National Rate 155
MORT_30_COPD 10.20 No Different Than the National Rate 56
MORT_30_HF 10.70 No Different Than the National Rate 659
MORT_30_PN 15.00 No Different Than the National Rate 263
MORT_30_STK 14.70 No Different Than the National Rate 534
PSI_03 1.27 Worse Than the National Rate 7,523
PSI_04 139.08 Better Than the National Rate 221
PSI_06 0.16 No Different Than the National Rate 8,520
PSI_08 0.28 No Different Than the National Rate 8,755
PSI_09 2.08 No Different Than the National Rate 2,412
PSI_10 3.07 Worse Than the National Rate 911
PSI_11 11.16 No Different Than the National Rate 888
PSI_12 2.58 No Different Than the National Rate 2,552
PSI_13 3.06 No Different Than the National Rate 898
PSI_14 1.49 No Different Than the National Rate 348
PSI_15 0.96 No Different Than the National Rate 1,422
PSI_90 1.15 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 75% —
H_COMP_1_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 7% —
H_COMP_1_U_P: Nurses "usually" communicated well 18% —
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 83% —
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 12% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_A_P: Nurses "always" listened carefully 73% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 7% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_U_P: Nurses "usually" listened carefully 20% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_A_P: Nurses "always" explained things so they could understand 70% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" explained things so they could understand 8% —
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 6% —
H_COMP_2_U_P: Doctors "usually" communicated well 16% —
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 4% —
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_U_P: Doctors "usually" treated them with courtesy and respect 11% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_A_P: Doctors "always" listened carefully 77% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 6% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_U_P: Doctors "usually" listened carefully 17% —
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 8% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_U_P: Doctors "usually" explained things so they could understand 19% —
H_COMP_5_A_P: Staff "always" explained 56% —
H_COMP_5_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained 25% —
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 — 2
H_MED_FOR_A_P: Staff "always" explained new medications 71% —
H_MED_FOR_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained new medications 12% —
H_MED_FOR_U_P: Staff "usually" explained new medications 17% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_A_P: Staff "always" explained possible side effects 41% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained possible side effects 37% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_U_P: Staff "usually" explained possible side effects 22% —
H_COMP_6_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients this information 16% —
H_COMP_6_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients this information 84% —
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 19% —
H_DISCH_HELP_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about help after discharge 81% —
H_SYMPTOMS_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients information about possible symptoms 14% —
H_SYMPTOMS_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about possible symptoms 86% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_A_P: Room was "always" clean 61% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_SN_P: Room was "sometimes" or "never" clean 17% —
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 — 2
H_QUIET_HSP_A_P: "Always" quiet at night 54% —
H_QUIET_HSP_SN_P: "Sometimes" or "never" quiet at night 13% —
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 — 2
H_HSP_RATING_0_6: Patients who gave a rating of "6" or lower (low) 10% —
H_HSP_RATING_7_8: Patients who gave a rating of "7" or "8" (medium) 21% —
H_HSP_RATING_9_10: Patients who gave a rating of "9" or "10" (high) 69% —
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) 8% —
H_RECMND_DY: "YES", patients would definitely recommend the hospital 68% —
H_RECMND_PY: "YES", patients would probably recommend the hospital 24% —
H_RECMND_LINEAR_SCORE: Recommend hospital - linear mean score — —
H_RECMND_STAR_RATING: Recommend hospital - star rating — 3
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 0.335 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_1_CIUPPER 0.849 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_1_DOPC 28409.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_1_ELIGCASES 32.863 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_1_NUMERATOR 18.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_1_SIR 0.548 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_CILOWER 0.227 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_CIUPPER 0.749 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_DOPC 15366.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_ELIGCASES 25.516 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_NUMERATOR 11.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_SIR 0.431 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_3_CILOWER 0.759 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_CIUPPER 3.433 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_DOPC 123.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_ELIGCASES 4.033 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_NUMERATOR 7.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_SIR 1.736 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_CILOWER 0.031 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_CIUPPER 3.077 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_DOPC 176.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_ELIGCASES 1.603 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_NUMERATOR 1.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_SIR 0.624 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_CILOWER 0.387 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_CIUPPER 1.279 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_DOPC 192180.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_ELIGCASES 14.945 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_NUMERATOR 11.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_SIR 0.736 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_6_CILOWER 0.109 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_CIUPPER 0.303 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_DOPC 166438.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_ELIGCASES 79.792 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_NUMERATOR 15.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_SIR 0.188 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 8.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
HH_HYPO 3.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
HH_ORAE — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
IMM_3 86.0 Healthcare Personnel Vaccination
OP_18a 226.0 Emergency Department
OP_18b 224.0 Emergency Department
OP_18c 269.0 Emergency Department
OP_18d — Emergency Department
OP_22 1.0 Emergency Department
OP_23 — Emergency Department
OP_29 97.0 Colonoscopy care
OP_31 — Cataract surgery outcome
OP_40 60.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SAFE_USE_OF_OPIOIDS 16.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SEP_1 54.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_3HR 69.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_6HR 80.0 Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_3HR 72.0 Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_6HR 95.0 Sepsis Care
STK_02 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_03 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_05 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
VTE_1 96.0 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 14.70 More Days Than Average per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_HF -0.70 Average Days per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_PN 0.60 Average Days per 100 Discharges
Hybrid_HWR 14.40 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_32 13.00 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_35_ADM — Number of Cases Too Small
OP_35_ED — Number of Cases Too Small
OP_36 1.00 No Different than expected
READM_30_AMI 13.90 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_CABG 10.20 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_COPD 19.10 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_HF 18.30 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_HIP_KNEE — Number of Cases Too Small
READM_30_PN 15.20 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
1.05

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 92 rows
Source Metric Value National Median Pctl. Raw key
Cost Report Cost-to-Charge Ratio 0.24 — metrics.cost_to_charge_ratio
Cost Report Employees per Bed 5.88 — metrics.employees_per_bed
Cost Report fiscal_year 2,023 — fiscal_year
Cost Report Fund Balance ($) $1,904,008,863 — metrics.fund_balance
Cost Report Net Income ($) $-12,808,113 — metrics.net_income
Cost Report Net Patient Revenue ($) $1,021,926,277 — metrics.net_patient_revenue
Cost Report Operating Margin (%) 9.9% — metrics.operating_margin
Cost Report Total Assets ($) $1,954,143,814 — metrics.total_assets
Cost Report Total Costs ($) $896,743,415 — metrics.total_costs
Cost Report Total Liabilities ($) $50,134,951 — metrics.total_liabilities
Cost Report Total Margin (%) -1.2% — metrics.total_margin
Cost Report Uncompensated Care (%) 7.4% — metrics.uncompensated_care_pct
General Information Address 5 MEDICAL PARK — Address
General Information City/Town COLUMBIA — 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 8 — 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 0 — Count of MORT Measures Better
General Information Count of MORT Measures No Different 7 — 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 7 — 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 1 — Count of Safety Measures Better
General Information Count of Safety Measures No Different 6 — Count of Safety Measures No Different
General Information Count of Safety Measures Worse 0 — Count of Safety Measures Worse
General Information County/Parish RICHLAND — County/Parish
General Information Emergency Services Yes — Emergency Services
General Information Facility ID 420018 — Facility ID
General Information Facility Name PRISMA HEALTH RICHLAND HOSPITAL — Facility Name
General Information Hospital overall rating 3 — 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 SC — State
General Information TE Group Footnote — — TE Group Footnote
General Information TE Group Measure Count 12 — TE Group Measure Count
General Information Telephone Number (803) 296-2548 — Telephone Number
General Information ZIP Code 29203 — ZIP Code
HAC Reduction Program fiscal_year 2,026 — fiscal_year
HAC Reduction Program measures — cauti — sir 0.71 — measures.cauti.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — cdi — sir 0.17 — measures.cdi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — clabsi — sir 0.71 — measures.clabsi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — mrsa — sir 0.93 — measures.mrsa.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — ssi — sir 0.99 — measures.ssi.sir
HAC Reduction Program payment_reduction No — payment_reduction
HAC Reduction Program total_hac_score 0.30 — 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 1.05 — Value
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Excess readmission ratio 1.04 0.9995 p71 READM-30-AMI-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Expected readmission rate 12.8% — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Number of discharges 378 — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Number of readmissions 52 — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Predicted readmission rate 13.3% — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Excess readmission ratio 0.97 1.0000 p37 READM-30-CABG-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Expected readmission rate 10.3% — READM-30-CABG-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Number of discharges 149 — 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 9.9% — READM-30-CABG-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Excess readmission ratio 1.05 0.9969 p84 READM-30-COPD-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Expected readmission rate 16.0% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Number of discharges 58 — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Number of readmissions 13 — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Predicted readmission rate 16.8% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Excess readmission ratio 0.93 0.9983 p11 READM-30-HF-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Expected readmission rate 19.9% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of discharges 780 — READM-30-HF-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of readmissions 139 — READM-30-HF-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Predicted readmission rate 18.5% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Excess readmission ratio 0.95 0.9955 p19 READM-30-PN-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Expected readmission rate 17.2% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of discharges 272 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of readmissions 41 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Predicted readmission rate 16.4% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Value-Based Purchasing Clinical Outcomes 7.00 5.00 p65 clinical_outcomes_score
Value-Based Purchasing Efficiency & Cost Reduction 0.00 2.50 p0 efficiency_score
Value-Based Purchasing Person & Community Engagement 6.50 8.75 p31 person_community_score
Value-Based Purchasing Safety 7.50 10.00 p27 safety_score
Value-Based Purchasing Total Performance Score 21.00 29.50 p19 total_performance_score
Methodology

Full methodology →