Skip to content
FonteumPublic-records evidence
Side-by-Side Comparison

CMS Care Compare vs Leapfrog Group: Side-by-Side Comparison

CMS Care Compare is the federal government's quality reporting system for Medicare-certified facilities. The Leapfrog Group is a nonprofit that produces its own hospital safety grades (A–F) derived from a voluntary hospital survey and CMS data. Both measure hospital quality but with different methodologies, different data collection approaches, and different governance.

Dimension by dimension

CMS Care Compare vs Leapfrog Group, across 8 dimensions

DimensionCMS Care CompareLeapfrog Group
Data typeFederally computed facility quality ratings from inspections, staffing data, and CMS outcome measuresHospital Safety Grade (A–F) from voluntary Leapfrog Hospital Survey + CMS public data
Coverage~50,000+ Medicare-certified facilities across all modules; hospitals covered separately~2,000–3,000 U.S. hospitals that participate in the voluntary survey (per Leapfrog)
Refresh cadenceCMS publishes on source-specific schedules; checked Care Compare serving tables showed a 2026-05-07 source date on 2026-07-12Semi-annual (Spring and Fall Leapfrog Hospital Survey releases)
License / CostU.S. government public-domain works — free to redistribute with attributionFree consumer grades; hospital survey data available for research — data licensing terms vary
API accessdata.cms.gov API and bulk CSV downloads; no key requiredNo public REST API; downloadable reports available
Source provenanceCCN-keyed rows with an available snapshot date; ingestion-row signature linkage is not assertedSelf-reported hospital survey + CMS public data; Leapfrog methodology published, but per-field source chain is not as granular as federal records
Primary use caseFacility quality benchmarks, inspection history, staffing and outcome comparison for Medicare-certified settingsHospital safety transparency for consumers and employers; safety grade used in employer benefit design and purchasing coalitions
PricingFree (federal public domain)Free for consumers; research data — pricing varies

Cells marked “—” indicate values not publicly documented by the respective platform. No data has been estimated or fabricated.

Honest fit

Which platform fits your team

When to use CMS Care Compare

Use CMS Care Compare when the need is the federally authoritative quality benchmark — inspection histories, staffing levels, and CMS-computed outcome scores across all Medicare-certified care settings. The methodology is publicly documented and the data is freely reproducible.

CMS Care Compare source detail →

When to use Leapfrog Group

Use Leapfrog when the audience is a purchasing coalition, employer benefit manager, or patient advocate looking for a consolidated A–F safety grade on hospital performance. Leapfrog's survey covers safety practices not fully captured in CMS's current star-rating methodology.

https://www.leapfroggroup.org

FAQ

Common questions

Which rating should I trust — CMS Care Compare or Leapfrog?
They measure overlapping but distinct things. CMS Care Compare is federally mandated and covers all Medicare-certified facilities using standardized inspection data. Leapfrog is voluntary — hospitals opt in — and adds self-reported safety practices that CMS does not currently collect in the same form. For baseline quality comparisons across all hospitals, CMS Care Compare is broader; for safety-specific grades on the hospitals that participate, Leapfrog adds a complementary signal.
Does Leapfrog use CMS data in its grades?
Yes. Leapfrog grades incorporate publicly available CMS quality measures alongside data from its own voluntary hospital survey. The CMS data layer in Leapfrog's methodology traces to the same federal primary source available at data.cms.gov.
Are all hospitals rated by Leapfrog?
No. The Leapfrog Hospital Survey is voluntary, and not all hospitals participate. CMS Care Compare covers all Medicare-certified hospitals (participation is mandatory for Medicare billing). For comprehensive hospital quality comparisons, CMS Care Compare is the more complete dataset.
How do I access CMS Care Compare data programmatically?
CMS publishes bulk CSV downloads for each care setting at data.cms.gov and provides a public API. The checked Fonteum Home Health, Hospice, Dialysis, and ASC tables had a newest source-release date of May 7, 2026 on July 12; that observation does not establish current coverage.

Last updated 2026-05-31. See all comparisons at /compare →

READY TO SHIP

Add federal-data citations to your agent in 60 seconds.

Connect the hosted MCP server to your agent, or call the API with an issued bearer credential. See the developer docs for the current public contract.

What’s on file, by the numbers

Platform snapshot · 2026-08-30

13.4Mproviders & companiesProviders, organizations, owners, and facilities on file
26.2Msource-linked factsSource-linked field facts in the dated platform snapshot
90sources with dataDistinct snapshot source IDs with at least one positive record count
16fresh sourcesDistinct source IDs whose latest positive-data snapshot falls within the preceding 45 days
111sources integratedActive registry rows; integration does not establish a load
13state Medicaid jurisdictionsDistinct states represented in the state-exclusions serving table

Integrated, with-data, and fresh-observation counts are separate. No platform-wide source-completeness count is published. Completeness is source-specific and must be evaluated against the named source's expected scope. State coverage is a separate jurisdiction measure.

Source authority is record-specific

Use the issuer named on the record.

Fonteum spans federal, state, and global public publishers. A source page or returned record identifies its issuer and dataset where that metadata is available. A platform registry count does not assign every page to one authority or establish loaded, fresh, or complete coverage.

Browse source records and their stated limitations →

Reproducible by design

Inspect the evidence each published figure actually supplies.

Source and date

Research pages expose the named public file and observation date where those fields are available. Source-file SHA-256 coverage is separate; facts do not currently link deterministically to signatures.

Available derivation

Studies with a retained release and committed derivation link the SQL or method used. Other studies state the evidence and reproduction limits they actually have.

Daily observations

Dated table row-count observations can detect local drift. They do not imply that an upstream publisher released or Fonteum ingested new data that day.

Named medical review

Reviewed by Jennifer Montecillo, MD, medical reviewer. Non-practicing medical reviewer.

Read the full provenance and attestation methodology →

Request access