Sutter Health among Premier's 15 Top Health Systems for 2025
Story Highlights Sutter Health ranked third among large health systems nationwide.
Premier's 15 Top Health Systems list evaluated 338 systems.
Top-ranked systems outperformed peers in mortality rates and efficiency.
Sutter Health was ranked among the best in the nation in Premier's 15 Top Health Systems in the United States.
The annual list ranks health systems based on clinical outcomes, extended outcomes, operational efficiency and patient experience. A total of 338 health systems were evaluated for the 2025 Premier's 15 Top Health Systems list.
GET TO KNOW YOUR CITY
Find Local Events Near You
Connect with a community of local professionals.
Explore All Events
To help spotlight the top hospitals and health systems across the nation, The Business Journals is partnering with Premier, a technology-driven, health care improvement company, to publish its annual rankings, including its 100 Top Hospitals ranking.
Sutter ranked No. 3 among five large health systems, following two based in Texas. It earned five stars, indicating performance in the top quintile, for clinical outcomes, which consider risk-adjusted mortality, complications, hospital-acquired infections, 30-day mortality and readmissions. It also received four stars for operational efficiency and patient experience.
Sutter is one of the largest employers, nonprofits and companies in the Sacramento region. It reported nearly $18 billion in revenue for fiscal 2024 and employs about 17,500 people in Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado and Yolo counties.
This year's top performers on Premier's 15 Top Health Systems rankings were Houston Methodist in Houston, Texas; Saint Francis Health System in Tulsa, Oklahoma; and CHI Memorial in Chattanooga, Tennessee, each of which topped its respective size category.
Only health systems with at least two short-term, general, acute care hospitals with separate Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Certification Numbers were included in the analysis.
Rankings were based on Medicare Provider Analysis and Review data, and data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Care Compare website. Health systems do not apply to be considered.
The health systems on this year's rankings outperformed peer systems by 22% on inpatient mortality rates. They also had fewer infections and shorter stays compared to peers.
If the performance of this year's 15 Top Health Systems were extrapolated to all Medicare inpatients, more than 171,000 lives could be saved in-hospital and the typical patient could be released a half-day sooner.
Here are this year's 15 Top Health Systems:
Large Health Systems
1. Houston Methodist
City: Houston, TX
System type: Parent
2. Baylor Scott & White Health
City: Dallas, TX
System type: Parent
3. Sutter Health
City: Sacramento, CA
System type: System
4. Intermountain Health
City: Salt Lake City, UT
System type: Parent
5. UCHealth
City: Aurora, CO
System type: Parent
Medium Health Systems
1. Saint Francis Health System
City: Tulsa, OK
System type: Parent
2. HCA Continental Division
City: Denver, CO
System type: Subsystem
3. HCA Mountain Division
City: Cottonwood Heights, UT
System type: Subsystem
4. HCA Central and West Texas Division
City: Austin, TX
System type: Subsystem
5. CHI Health
City: Omaha, NE
System type: Subsystem
Small Health Systems
1. CHI Memorial
City: Chattanooga, TN
System type: Subsystem
2. CHRISTUS Spohn Health System
City: Corpus Christi, TX
System type: Subsystem
3. CHI Saint Joseph Health
City: Lexington, KY
System type: Subsystem
4. Health First
City: Rockledge, FL
System type: Parent
5. Baptist Health Care (Florida)
City: Pensacola, FL
System type: Parent
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: It's Time to Buy UnitedHealth Group Stock After a 50% Plunge
Most of UnitedHealth Group's issues should be temporary. The two biggest threats to the healthcare giant are iffy. The price is right to buy UnitedHealth Group stock after its steep decline. 10 stocks we like better than UnitedHealth Group › UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH) might want to change its stock ticker from "UNH" to "UGH." The latter better captures the feelings of the healthcare giant's shareholders in recent months. A string of problems has caused UnitedHealth Group's share price to plunge roughly 50% from the peak set in the fourth quarter of 2024. Some analysts have downgraded the stock, with HSBC recommending that investors reduce their holdings and slashing its price target. I have a different opinion, though. I think it's time to buy UnitedHealth Group stock. Here are three reasons why. I don't think investors should ignore UnitedHealth Group's issues. However, the challenges should be viewed with a long-term perspective. I suspect most of the problems the company faces should be temporary. UnitedHealth Group has already largely moved past the cyberattack that occurred in February 2024. Although it cost the healthcare company over $2 billion, that issue has already proven to be a short-lived one. Higher Medicare Advantage costs are the main culprit behind UnitedHealth Group's suspension of its 2025 full-year guidance. But the company says that it expects to return to growth in 2026. I believe this prediction because it makes sense. Insurers sometimes incur higher-than-anticipated costs and feel the pain for a while. However, once they adjust premiums, the problem goes away. UnitedHealth Group announced the sudden departure of former CEO Andrew Witty at the same time it withdrew its 2025 outlook. Any worries investors might have had surrounding this move probably dissipated quickly after they learned Stephen Hemsley was returning to run the company. Hemsley served as CEO from 2006 through 2017, a period when UnitedHealth Group stock more than tripled. I also view the two biggest threats to UnitedHealth Group as iffy. What are those threats? An alleged U.S. Department of Justice criminal investigation of the company and President Trump's stated goal to eliminate pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs). Noted that I used the word "alleged" to describe the U.S. Department of Justice probe. The Wall Street Journal reported on May 14, 2025, that "people familiar with the matter" revealed that the DOJ had launched a criminal investigation of UnitedHealth Group for possible Medicare fraud. However, the company quickly responded that it hadn't been notified of any DOJ investigation. That status hasn't changed. President Trump did announce that he wants to "cut out the middleman," a clear reference to PBMs. That's easier said than done, though, to put it mildly. Removing PBMs from the U.S. healthcare system would require a detailed, comprehensive plan that so far has not been provided. That plan would also have to pass in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. You can bet that the PBM industry, including UnitedHealth Group, would lobby fiercely against any such legislation. I think this threat, while serious, has a relatively low probability of actually materializing. Finally, I think all these issues are fully baked into UnitedHealth Group's share price. The stock currently trades at a forward price-to-earnings ratio of around 13.3. That's well below the S&P 500 healthcare sector forward earnings multiple of 16.6. It's also the lowest valuation for UnitedHealth Group in more than a decade. Could the stock fall further? Maybe, but I believe that UnitedHealth Group's share price has bottomed out. You might have noticed that UnitedHealth Group's share price has traded in a relatively narrow range since the steep decline in April and May. This trading pattern seems to confirm my view. Any good news for UnitedHealth Group could provide a nice catalyst. I predict that the company will have some positive developments in the not-too-distant future, potentially including new full-year guidance that calms investors. If I'm right, buying UnitedHealth Group stock now could pay off handsomely. Before you buy stock in UnitedHealth Group, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and UnitedHealth Group wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $649,102!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $882,344!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 996% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 174% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 HSBC Holdings is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Keith Speights has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends HSBC Holdings and UnitedHealth Group. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Opinion: It's Time to Buy UnitedHealth Group Stock After a 50% Plunge was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr.'s latest big move could leave you paying more for vaccines
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sent shockwaves through the scientific community this week when he fired all 17 members of the federal government's key vaccine advisory board, raising concerns that he might try to replace them with immunization skeptics. Those fears were confirmed for many on Wednesday when Kennedy unveiled eight new members who included some of the most prominent critics of the COVID-19 vaccines. The swap could have wide-reaching public health consequences. But one of the most straightforward impacts may be on consumers' wallets. That's because recommendations by the board — known as the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices, or ACIP — determine which vaccines most insurance plans are required to cover at zero cost, such as inoculation against measles or your annual flu shot. If the new members decide to reverse the panel's old guidance, patients could find themselves paying out of pocket for vaccines that were once available for free. 'For the average person who has never heard of ACIP before, this could affect their access to vaccines,' said Jennifer Kates, a senior vice president at the healthcare think tank KFF. Created in 1964, ACIP is the official outside panel of medical experts responsible for advising the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on what to include on its lists of routine shots for both children and adults. While its recommendations aren't binding, federal officials have typically adopted them. As a result, the board's decisions carry enormous weight, affecting patients and parents, as well as the vaccines schools require for students. Over the years, the panel has played a growing role in determining insurance coverage as well. By law, shots recommended by ACIP must be covered by the free Vaccines for Children program, the Children's Health Insurance Program, Medicaid, and Medicare Part D. The Affordable Care Act also requires private insurers to pay for vaccines with no cost sharing if they have the panel's seal of approval. (Past administrations have said the rule only applies if the CDC also adopts the board's recommendation.) In a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week, Kennedy said his decision to replace the board was meant to fight a 'crisis of public trust' in vaccines by ridding the committee of what he described as 'persistent conflicts of interest.' (Kennedy's critics have argued that his allegations against ACIP's former members are unfounded.) His new picks for the panel include several figures who rose to national fame by casting doubt on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Among them is Dr. Robert Malone, an accomplished scientist who did pioneering work on mRNA technology but later attacked its use in shots during the pandemic and who was at one point banned from Twitter for spreading COVID misinformation. He'll be joined by Retsef Levi, an MIT business school professor who gained attention in 2023 for claiming there was 'indisputable evidence' that 'MRNA vaccines cause serious harm including death,' and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, who advocated letting COVID spread among younger Americans to achieve 'herd immunity' and was later let go from Harvard Medical after refusing to be vaccinated. In his announcement, Kennedy said that each new member of ACIP was 'committed to demanding definitive safety and efficacy data before making any new vaccine recommendations' — suggesting they'll be less likely to add new shots to the government's immunization schedules. But he added that the board will also 'review safety and efficacy data for the current schedule as well,' raising the possibility that it will scrap some of its old recommendations. Even before this week's shake-up, the government had already begun changing its recommendations on COVID shots. In May, the CDC dropped its recommendation that healthy pregnant women receive the vaccine and revised its guidance for young children, saying they should only receive it after consultation with a doctor. Private insurers could still choose to cover vaccines even if the federal government stops recommending them. Whether they will is less certain. 'That's territory we haven't really had to traverse before,' said KFF's Kates. Sarah Moselle, a vaccine market expert at the health industry consulting firm Avalere, said there may be some 'fragmentation' in how carriers approach the issue. Some may drop coverage entirely or begin requiring co-pays. But many 'do anticipate that they would continue to cover some vaccines,' even if they aren't required to, since it would 'add value' for their customers, she said. In theory, insurers could also have an incentive to maintain vaccine coverage since it could keep their patients healthier and reduce the costs of their care, though it's unclear exactly how those savings would stack up against the added expense of paying for shots. For many vaccines, the out-of-pocket cost might be relatively cheap for patients. But others could turn out to be steep. Take Gardasil, the HPV vaccine that has been the focus of growing safety concerns among patients despite studies suggesting they're unfounded. Some experts told Yahoo Finance they thought the shot could be a target for more scrutiny under Kennedy's new ACIP. Currently, the shot is covered by insurance because it's recommended for pre-teens through young adults. The CDC lists its full price at over $300 a dose. Even modest costs can dissuade patients from getting vaccinated, according to Loren Adler, associate director at the Brookings Institution's Center on Health Policy. 'We know that folks having to pay $10 for a vaccine limits the uptake somewhat,' he said. As a result, just a small increase in what patients have to pay out of pocket could have ripple effects on public health. One issue to keep an eye on, according to Moselle, is whether state governments step in to require more extensive insurance coverage of vaccines if the federal government walks back some of its recommendations. If they do, vaccine access could start to vary more by where patients happen to live. Jordan Weissmann is a senior reporter at Yahoo Finance. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest health industry news and events impacting stock prices
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr.'s latest big move could leave you paying more for vaccines
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sent shockwaves through the scientific community this week when he fired all 17 members of the federal government's key vaccine advisory board, raising concerns that he might try to replace them with immunization skeptics. Those fears were confirmed for many on Wednesday when Kennedy unveiled eight new members who included some of the most prominent critics of the COVID-19 vaccines. The swap could have wide-reaching public health consequences. But one of the most straightforward impacts may be on consumers' wallets. That's because recommendations by the board — known as the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices, or ACIP — determine which vaccines most insurance plans are required to cover at zero cost, such as inoculation against measles or your annual flu shot. If the new members decide to reverse the panel's old guidance, patients could find themselves paying out of pocket for vaccines that were once available for free. 'For the average person who has never heard of ACIP before, this could affect their access to vaccines,' said Jennifer Kates, a senior vice president at the healthcare think tank KFF. Created in 1964, ACIP is the official outside panel of medical experts responsible for advising the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on what to include on its lists of routine shots for both children and adults. While its recommendations aren't binding, federal officials have typically adopted them. As a result, the board's decisions carry enormous weight, affecting patients and parents, as well as the vaccines schools require for students. Over the years, the panel has played a growing role in determining insurance coverage as well. By law, shots recommended by ACIP must be covered by the free Vaccines for Children program, the Children's Health Insurance Program, Medicaid, and Medicare Part D. The Affordable Care Act also requires private insurers to pay for vaccines with no cost sharing if they have the panel's seal of approval. (Past administrations have said the rule only applies if the CDC also adopts the board's recommendation.) In a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week, Kennedy said his decision to replace the board was meant to fight a 'crisis of public trust' in vaccines by ridding the committee of what he described as 'persistent conflicts of interest.' (Kennedy's critics have argued that his allegations against ACIP's former members are unfounded.) His new picks for the panel include several figures who rose to national fame by casting doubt on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Among them is Dr. Robert Malone, an accomplished scientist who did pioneering work on mRNA technology but later attacked its use in shots during the pandemic and who was at one point banned from Twitter for spreading COVID misinformation. He'll be joined by Retsef Levi, an MIT business school professor who gained attention in 2023 for claiming there was 'indisputable evidence' that 'MRNA vaccines cause serious harm including death,' and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, who advocated letting COVID spread among younger Americans to achieve 'herd immunity' and was later let go from Harvard Medical after refusing to be vaccinated. In his announcement, Kennedy said that each new member of ACIP was 'committed to demanding definitive safety and efficacy data before making any new vaccine recommendations' — suggesting they'll be less likely to add new shots to the government's immunization schedules. But he added that the board will also 'review safety and efficacy data for the current schedule as well,' raising the possibility that it will scrap some of its old recommendations. Even before this week's shake-up, the government had already begun changing its recommendations on COVID shots. In May, the CDC dropped its recommendation that healthy pregnant women receive the vaccine and revised its guidance for young children, saying they should only receive it after consultation with a doctor. Private insurers could still choose to cover vaccines even if the federal government stops recommending them. Whether they will is less certain. 'That's territory we haven't really had to traverse before,' said KFF's Kates. Sarah Moselle, a vaccine market expert at the health industry consulting firm Avalere, said there may be some 'fragmentation' in how carriers approach the issue. Some may drop coverage entirely or begin requiring co-pays. But many 'do anticipate that they would continue to cover some vaccines,' even if they aren't required to, since it would 'add value' for their customers, she said. In theory, insurers could also have an incentive to maintain vaccine coverage since it could keep their patients healthier and reduce the costs of their care, though it's unclear exactly how those savings would stack up against the added expense of paying for shots. For many vaccines, the out-of-pocket cost might be relatively cheap for patients. But others could turn out to be steep. Take Gardasil, the HPV vaccine that has been the focus of growing safety concerns among patients despite studies suggesting they're unfounded. Some experts told Yahoo Finance they thought the shot could be a target for more scrutiny under Kennedy's new ACIP. Currently, the shot is covered by insurance because it's recommended for pre-teens through young adults. The CDC lists its full price at over $300 a dose. Even modest costs can dissuade patients from getting vaccinated, according to Loren Adler, associate director at the Brookings Institution's Center on Health Policy. 'We know that folks having to pay $10 for a vaccine limits the uptake somewhat,' he said. As a result, just a small increase in what patients have to pay out of pocket could have ripple effects on public health. One issue to keep an eye on, according to Moselle, is whether state governments step in to require more extensive insurance coverage of vaccines if the federal government walks back some of its recommendations. If they do, vaccine access could start to vary more by where patients happen to live. Jordan Weissmann is a senior reporter at Yahoo Finance. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest health industry news and events impacting stock prices
