CMS dialysis quality · Measure map
Name the program, measure, year, and data period before discussing quality. This page explains a proposed workflow alignment; it is not a score calculator or a CMS interpretation for a particular facility.
It may support work related to specific measures, especially PPPW and the revised ICH CAHPS information and choice topics. A dialysis center can measure education, referral follow-up, barrier resolution, and documentation as separate workflow outcomes. CMS defines and scores QIP measures; approved survey vendors administer ICH CAHPS; transplant programs decide candidacy and waitlisting. Transplant Check cannot guarantee a QIP TPS, either Care Compare star rating, a waitlist decision, or a clinical outcome.
Next step: Name the exact measure and payment year, then map the controllable workflow steps and baseline them before making a claim.
A payment year is not the same as the year in which care was measured.
| Payment year | Performance period | Improvement period | Marketing boundary |
|---|---|---|---|
| PY 2026 | CY 2024 | — | Closed historical performance; a September 2026 site cannot change it. |
| PY 2027 | CY 2025 | CY 2024 | Closed historical performance; a September 2026 site cannot change it. |
| PY 2028 | CY 2026 | CY 2025 | Only the remaining portion of CY 2026 overlaps this planning date; no retroactive effect is implied. |
For PY 2028, CY 2026 is the performance period and CY 2025 is the improvement period. CMS’s PY 2028 fact sheet is the source for the finalized year-specific context; it is not a current published score.
A payment-year score built from applicable QIP measures and domains. A facility below the applicable standard can receive a Medicare payment reduction of up to 2%.
It is not a Care Compare star, transplant outcome, or patient result. CMS QIP measuring quality
For PY 2028, this higher-is-better QIP Care Coordination measure is the percentage of prevalent patients on a kidney or kidney-pancreas transplant waitlist under the specification.
It is not referral, evaluation, eligibility, or transplant rate. The transplant program decides waitlisting. CMS PPPW data
A public 1-to-5 rating with multiple clinical quality topics, including transplant waitlist. CMS describes 3 stars as the national average.
It is distinct from QIP TPS and the patient-survey star. CMS rating methodology
A separate public star rating built from ICH CAHPS patient-reported experience results.
It is not PPPW, FYSWR, QIP TPS, or a product engagement metric. CMS patient-survey rating
First Year Standardized Kidney Transplant Waitlist Ratio is a publicly reported Care Compare facility measure for incident dialysis patients. The facility dataset publishes FYSWR and PPPW as distinct fields.
FYSWR is not a PY 2027 or PY 2028 QIP measure. CMS facility dataset
The revised treatment-choice section gives a precise language boundary for patient-experience alignment.
Q24, Q26, Q27, and Q28 are in the revised Providing Information to Patients composite. The revised instrument has no separate item specifically about home hemodialysis. CMS-approved vendors administer the survey independently; alignment does not prove an item response, composite, ICH CAHPS score, patient-survey star, or QIP TPS. Read the revised survey and composite specification.
CMS participation requirements include interdisciplinary assessment and plan-of-care work involving modality choice, transplant-referral planning and tracking, education, and communication.
Transplant Check may support education, checklists, status prompts, and workflow consistency. It does not make a facility compliant. The facility remains responsible for clinical judgment, documentation, reporting, and care. CMS: End-Stage Renal Disease Facilities — Conditions for Coverage
CMS removed Facility Commitment to Health Equity, Screening for Social Drivers of Health, and Screen Positive Rate for Social Drivers of Health from ESRD QIP beginning with PY 2027. Continue addressing barriers because they can obstruct evaluation and follow-up, but do not describe that work as QIP points. Read the final-rule fact sheet
| Actor | Controls or confirms | What the workflow can support |
|---|---|---|
| Dialysis facility | Education, assessment, plan of care, documentation, referral follow-up, and communication within facility responsibilities. | Consistent explanations, named owners, barrier routing, and follow-up review. |
| Transplant program | Evaluation, candidacy, listing decision, active/inactive status, and program requirements. | Confirm the program’s own receipt, decision, and status. |
| CMS | QIP definitions, specifications, scoring, payment-year rules, and Care Compare methods. | Map a workflow to a named measure and period; never promise the result. |
| Approved survey vendor | Independent ICH CAHPS survey administration under the current instrument. | Prepare understandable treatment-choice conversations; never script or guarantee responses. |
A future review artifact could show a facility’s published PPPW and FYSWR fields beside the applicable data period and a workflow checklist.
That would be a public-data snapshot with source lineage, not a CMS score calculator, causal analysis, eligibility assessment, or performance guarantee. CMS data refreshes and specifications require revalidation before any such artifact is built.
Does the named workflow step have an owner, a source of truth, a measurable process definition, and a clear statement of what the data cannot establish?
Sources consulted September 12, 2026; CMS specifications, ratings, datasets, and survey materials must be checked again before publication or use for a facility decision.