September 16, 2025

Why CMS Star Ratings Matter More Than Ever 

Hospitals are constantly measured on their quality of care, but few metrics carry as much weight as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Star Ratings. These ratings influence how patients choose hospitals, how payers negotiate contracts, and how organizations position themselves in an increasingly competitive healthcare landscape. 


The Role of Star Ratings 

The CMS Star Ratings program evaluates hospitals across a wide range of quality measures. These include clinical outcomes such as readmissions and mortality, safety indicators like hospital-acquired conditions, and patient experience surveys addressing communication, responsiveness, and cleanliness. Hospitals receive an overall score that is highly visible to the public and payers. 


Impact on Patient Choice and Public Perception 

Patients want assurance that the care they receive will be safe and effective. Star Ratings serve as a shorthand for quality, guiding patient choice when selecting where to receive treatment. Hospitals with higher ratings often enjoy stronger reputations in their communities, while lower ratings can raise concerns about safety and performance. 


Influence on Reimbursement and Contracts 

Star Ratings are not just symbolic. They affect how hospitals are reimbursed, influence payer negotiations, and may unlock incentive payments for high performance. For many organizations, Star Ratings directly shape financial sustainability and the ability to reinvest in staff and technology. 

The Hidden Impact of Denials on Star Ratings 

Denials are often seen as a revenue cycle issue, but their impact goes far beyond delayed payments. When denials distort clinical data, they also undermine a hospital’s performance in CMS Star Ratings. 


Financial Consequences 

Every denied claim represents lost or delayed revenue. This directly reduces the resources available for quality initiatives, staffing, and patient experience improvements. Hospitals under financial strain may struggle to invest in areas that strengthen Star Ratings. 


Data Accuracy and Risk Adjustment 

Denials linked to documentation gaps or coding errors can lead to underreporting of patient complexity. Missed severity of illness and comorbidities affect risk adjustment, making outcomes such as mortality or readmissions appear worse than they are. Inaccurate data paints an incomplete picture of care quality. 


Denials influence critical Star Ratings measures, including:

 

  • Mortality rates 
  • Readmission rates 
  • Complications 
  • Patient safety indicators 

 

When denials obscure true performance, hospitals risk lower ratings despite providing high-quality care. 


Operational Burden 

Staff rework and appeals consume time that could otherwise be dedicated to patient care, CDI initiatives, and proactive quality improvements. This operational distraction further hampers performance on Star Ratings measures. 


Organizations that do not address denial management place both their financial health and their public reputation at risk. By taking a proactive and comprehensive approach to denial prevention and management, hospitals can improve patient outcomes, protect vital revenue streams, and reinforce the trust and confidence of their communities and stakeholders.



Turning Denial Prevention into Star Ratings Success 

Reducing denials is about more than revenue recovery. It is a strategic opportunity to strengthen documentation, improve data accuracy, and ultimately elevate CMS Star Ratings. 


Key Risks to Address 

Hospitals that do not proactively manage denials face three major risks: 

 

  • Missed capture of severity of illness and risk adjustment 
  • Underreported quality outcomes 
  • Reduced ability to invest in staff, technology, and patient experience 

 

Strategic Priorities for Hospitals 

 

  • Strengthen Documentation and Coding Accuracy: Clear, complete provider documentation ensures accurate code assignment and proper reflection of patient complexity. 
  • Proactively Manage Denials and Appeals: Early intervention prevents errors from cascading into distorted data and reduced reimbursement. 
  • Align CDI, Coding, and Revenue Cycle with Quality Measures: Collaboration across these functions ensures accurate reporting of outcomes and supports better ratings. 
  • Reinforce the Cycle of Accuracy: Accurate documentation leads to improved reimbursement, which enables reinvestment in quality initiatives, ultimately driving higher Star Ratings

 

Connecting Quality and Finance 
Denial prevention directly supports quality outcomes, enhances reimbursement, and improves patient trust. By managing denials strategically, hospitals turn a traditional operational challenge into an opportunity for growth and leadership in value-based care. 


Bottom Line

Star Ratings matter because they connect quality, perception, and financial outcomes. To improve them, hospitals must ensure that clinical data accurately reflects the care provided, a process rooted in documentation and coding. Denials are not only a financial burden but also a quality risk; hospitals that fail to address denial management jeopardize both their bottom line and their reputation. Reducing denials is a win-win strategy that protects revenue, ensures fair representation of outcomes, and strengthens a hospital’s reputation through improved Star Ratings.


Leah Jeffries, RHIT, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, Managing Consultant, Strategy at UASI

Leah Jeffries, RHIT, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P  

Managing Consultant, Strategy at UASI


Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2024). Overall hospital quality star rating.
Available at
https://data.cms.gov/provider-data/topics/hospitals/overall-hospital-quality-star-rating/


Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2025). Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM).
Available at
https://www.cms.gov/priorities/innovation/innovation-models/team-model


Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2024). Hospital quality star ratings methodology.
Available at
https://qualitynet.cms.gov/inpatient/measures/hospital-star-ratings


American Hospital Association. (2025). Denials management in hospitals.
Available at
https://www.aha.org/


American College of Surgeons. (2025). Preparing for TEAM: Transforming Episode Accountability Model.
Available at
https://www.facs.org/

MRI brain scans illustrating symptoms of PRES with title text overlay.
December 9, 2025
Learn the symptoms of PRES, key treatment considerations, ICD-10-CM code I67.83, and documentation tips for CDI and accurate DRG assignment.
Microscopic immune cells interacting in cellular environment, illustrating immune effector activity
By Katie Curry December 1, 2025
Understand ICANS documentation and ICD-10 coding with guidance on the ICANS grading system, ICE score, clinical indicators, and CAR T-cell neurotoxicity.
Fingerstick blood glucose test being performed, illustrating screening and monitoring practices for gestational diabetes.
By Katie Curry November 3, 2025
Gestational Diabetes
Clinician pointing to anatomical kidney model illustrating acute kidney injury.
By Katie Curry October 20, 2025
Learn how to identify, document, and code acute kidney injury (AKI), including diagnostic criteria, staging, ICD-10-CM guidance, and CDI query considerations.
Blurred hospital scene symbolizing CDI review of firearm injury intent reporting.
By Katie Curry September 30, 2025
Learn how firearm injury intent is documented and reported in ICD-10-CM, including intent categories, external cause codes, and documentation considerations.
Title image for the ventricular standstill clinical documentation and coding overview
By Katie Curry September 22, 2025
Learn how ventricular standstill is documented and coded, including clinical indicators, ICD-10-CM guidance, and common documentation considerations.
Title image for neurostorming (PSH) documentation and coding
By Katie Curry September 7, 2025
Learn how neurostorming, also known as paroxysmal sympathetic hyperactivity (PSH), is documented and coded using ICD-10-CM guidance.
By Katie Curry August 7, 2025
Background: With the 2026 IPPS Proposed Final Rule comes a new diabetes code, E11.A, Type II diabetes mellitus without complications in remission. This is a non-CC/MCC and is assigned to MDC 10. ICD-10-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting 2026: Section I.C.4.a.1.(b) - “Code E11.A, Type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications in remission, is assigned based on provider documentation that the diabetes mellitus is in remission. If the documentation is unclear as to whether the Type 2 diabetes mellitus has achieved remission, the provider should be queried. For example, the term “resolved” is not synonymous with remission.” Clinical criteria for diabetes in remission: Note* - Remission does not mean cure. Ongoing monitoring is essential as relapse is possible. 1. Prior Diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus Documented history of type 2 diabetes mellitus, diagnosed using standard criteria: HbA1c ≥ 6.5% Fasting plasma glucose ≥ 126 mg/dL 2-hour plasma glucose ≥ 200 mg/dL during an OGTT Random plasma glucose ≥ 200 mg/dL with classic symptoms 2. Normal or Controlled Glucose Levels Without Medications The patient is not taking any antidiabetic medications (oral agents, insulin, or non-insulin injectables). Glycemic control is sustained through lifestyle modifications, such as diet and exercise. HbA1c < 6.5%, and sometimes < 6.0%, on two occasions at least 6 months apart without pharmacologic therapy. 3. Duration of Remission Partial remission: HbA1c < 6.5% and fasting glucose 100–125 mg/dL for at least 1 year without medications. Complete remission: HbA1c in the normal range (<5.7%) and fasting glucose <100 mg/dL for at least 1 year. Prolonged remission: Complete remission lasting ≥5 years. 4. Documentation Must Include Clear statement that diabetes is in remission or resolution. No current use of diabetes medications. Current HbA1c values. Lifestyle interventions being used. Absence of ongoing diabetic complications (or if present, they are noted as sequelae) 5. What about Type I diabetes? Is remission associated? “Honeymoon Phase” vs. Remission Some individuals newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes may experience a "honeymoon phase": This is a temporary period (weeks to months) where insulin needs to decrease and blood glucose levels may normalize. However, this is not true remission, as the autoimmune process continues and insulin dependence eventually returns. Clinical Scenario Dr. Doctor, Documentation in your visit note indicates the patient has a documented history of type 2 diabetes mellitus, but current labs show: HbA1c: 5.6% No diabetes medications (e.g., insulin, metformin) currently prescribed Patient reports lifestyle changes (e.g., diet and weight loss) No hyperglycemia documented during this admission or recent visits Query Based on the clinical picture, can you please clarify the patient’s current diabetic status? ☐ Type 2 diabetes mellitus – continue to document and treat as active ☐ History of type 2 diabetes mellitus, currently in remission (no medications, normal glucose values) ☐ Other: ________________
By Katie Curry July 9, 2025
Definition: Neonatal encephalopathy (NE) is a clinically defined syndrome of disturbed neurologic function in the earliest days of life in a term or late preterm infant, manifested by difficulty with initiating and maintaining respiration, depression of tone and reflexes, subnormal level of consciousness, and often seizures. Clinical presentation: Low APGAR scores and/or weak/absent cry in the delivery room. Hyperalert, irritable, lethargic, obtunded. Decreased spontaneous movements, poor tone, blunted or absent primitive reflexes, seizure activity. Breathing and/or feeding difficulties. Documentation Tips: The CDS should review to identify the underlying etiology . (e.g., hypoxic-ischemic event, infection, metabolic disorder). Review clinical indicators that may indicate associated conditions , such as seizures, abnormal imaging, acidosis, or multi-organ dysfunction. Review the documentation for the timing of onset (e.g., at birth, delayed). Common clinical indicators include low APGAR scores, need for resuscitation, abnormal tone, or altered level of consciousness.  ICD-10-CM Coding: P91.811, Neonatal encephalopathy in diseases classified elsewhere P91.819, Neonatal encephalopathy, unspecified Use when the type or etiology of NE is not documented Query Example: To the Attending Neonatologist: Documentation in the medical record indicates the newborn infant delivered from mother with placental abruption demonstrates seizures, abnormal muscle tone, low APGAR scores, and required resuscitation at birth. Imaging showed evidence of cerebral edema. The diagnosis of “neonatal encephalopathy” was documented in the assessment. Query: Based on the clinical indicators, can you clarify the type and cause of the encephalopathy in this newborn? Please select the most appropriate option below or specify another diagnosis: Neonatal encephalopathy due to Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) Neonatal encephalopathy due to other etiology (please specify) Other (please specify): __________
By Katie Curry May 12, 2025
Definition: Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) is an oncologic emergency caused by massive tumor cell lysis and the release of large amounts of potassium, phosphate, and uric acid into the systemic circulation. Deposition of uric acid and/or calcium phosphate crystals in the renal tubules can result in acute kidney injury.
Show More