Quick answer
A SNF QRP preview review checks the result CMS plans to publish. It does not reopen the deadline for underlying assessment corrections. Match the report to its measure-specific period, distinguish a calculation discrepancy from a late source correction, and submit any eligible review request through CMS’s stated route within the preview window.
Identify the publication being reviewed
A public value, a current facility-level report and a preview report can all be accurate for different data snapshots. Before treating their disagreement as an error, record the facility CCN, report title, generation date, planned public refresh and the collection period for each measure.
As of November 10, 2026, the CMS public-reporting notice gives facilities until November 14, 2026 to review the preview for the January 2027 refresh. Its assessment-based measures cover April 2025–March 2026. Its influenza HCP measure uses October 2025–March 2026. Claims measures use other periods. A spreadsheet that assigns one date range to every column will create false discrepancies.
This is also a change-control review. CMS says the two COVID-19 vaccination measures disappear from QRP public reporting beginning with the January 2027 refresh, with historical data retained in the archive. An intentionally removed measure is not a failed feed. Preserve the reason for removal so historical trend reports remain understandable.
Separate two kinds of disagreement
The review-and-correct stage occurs before the final submission deadline. The preview stage occurs after that deadline. CMS describes a 30-day preview period for reviewing the intended public results, including a possible numerator, denominator or metric error. It does not permit facilities to reopen the underlying assessment data window.
A useful first question is: “Using the data that were eligible at the cutoff, is the published calculation wrong?” That is different from: “Would the result improve if we could replace a record now?” Correcting the clinical record may still be appropriate under the applicable process, but it does not create a new public-reporting entitlement.
A completed discrepancy decision
Consider this fictional packet. The measure names are omitted so the numbers illustrate report reconciliation rather than a clinical measure specification.
| Issue | Evidence examined | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| Preview shows 76 qualifying cases out of 100; current report shows 78 out of 100 | Two supporting assessment corrections were accepted after the final submission deadline | Explain the difference as a snapshot issue; do not present the late corrections as a CMS calculation error |
| A different metric shows 40 eligible cases, while the retained cutoff-period aggregate identifies 42 | Same CCN, measure version, period and cutoff; no late corrections explain the difference | Prepare a non-PHI request identifying the denominator discrepancy and retained supporting aggregate |
| COVID-19 vaccination column is absent | January 2027 refresh notice explicitly removes the measure | Mark the column retired for this refresh; preserve the historical series separately |
The first issue closes with a documented explanation and any appropriate source-correction follow-through. The second remains a CMS-review item; the facility has a reason to ask for review, not proof that CMS must change the value. The third becomes a report-definition update.
Assemble the review request around the disputed result
CMS specifies email as the review route and requires the facility's CCN, business name and address, CEO or designated representative contact details, and information identifying the affected measure and disputed numerator, denominator or metric. The published instructions provide the subject-line format and address. Use those current instructions when preparing an actual request.
The working packet should contain a short discrepancy statement, the exact preview report, measure-period mapping, a reproducible non-PHI comparison and a list of late changes that were deliberately excluded from the comparison. Maintain resident-level working evidence within the facility's approved environment; CMS says requests containing PHI will not be reviewed.
Submission is not closure. Save the sent request and receipt confirmation, route requests for further information to the designated contact, and retain CMS's written decision. CMS states that accepted corrections are displayed in a subsequent quarterly release, so the team should record the expected publication follow-up rather than promising an immediate website change.
Make the explanation survive the next refresh
Use separate statuses for source-record correction, CMS review and public-display verification. In the example, marking all three issues “corrected” would hide three different outcomes. The final management note should identify what changed, what merely became explainable and what remains with CMS.
A full-platform evaluation should test whether staff can reproduce a prior cutoff snapshot after later amendments. The important output is a defensible explanation of the public result, with a review request only where the evidence supports one. A live dashboard that continually overwrites history makes this review harder even if its current numbers are correct.
Questions & answers
Can a correction made during the preview period change that preview?
CMS says underlying submission and correction deadlines have passed. Late assessment updates can change facility- and patient-level reports without changing the preview or the targeted public refresh.
What can a facility ask CMS to review?
During the preview period, a facility may request review of a numerator, denominator or quality metric it believes CMS displayed inaccurately. A late correction to inaccurate submitted data is not an acceptable substitute.
Should resident charts be attached to the review email?
CMS says it will not review requests containing protected health information. Follow its required facility and contact fields and use non-PHI supporting information through the prescribed process.
Primary sources
Use the cited source and its applicable version when making a facility-specific decision. These guides explain operational evaluation methods; they are not individualized clinical, coding, or legal advice.