No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Utuqqanaat Inaat

436 Mission Street, Kotzebue, AK 99752 · Non profit - Corporation · 18 certified beds · (907) 442-3321 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (907) 442-3321 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 8 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
Worth asking about
  • nursing-staff turnover (74%) runs well above the national median (45%)

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

5/5
CMS overall
5 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 5 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
829 Chief Eddie Hoffman Hwy · (907) 543-6000 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Bison Street
Park
Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
558 Friends Way · (907) 442-3170

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 3 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 3 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased26.2%16.7%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight0.0%5.3%5.4%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%1.4%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%2.5%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.0%6.5%6.5%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury13.8%3.2%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened29.7%19.5%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication3.1%14.7%18.9%better
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers0.0%6.9%4.7%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control17.0%20.0%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table34.6%18.8%17.1%worse

* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

0.01U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.01hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.01 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 0% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNFnot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNFnot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at dischargenot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at dischargenot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at dischargenot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identifiednot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF staynot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsenednot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalizationnot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFsnot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.96
RN hours/ resident / day
1.53
LPN hours/ resident / day
5.12
Aide hours/ resident / day
7.61
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.78
RN hoursweekends
73.7%
Total nursing turnover
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 18 beds and averages 17.0 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 1 bed typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 7.61 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.96 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 5.12 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 7.16 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 7.79 on weekdays — 8% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.03 to 0.78 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 74% is well above the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

2
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-11-13)
3
at the previous standard inspection (2024-04-25)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-11-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff followed accepted standards of practice for hand hygiene for 5 residents (#'s 5, 8, 11, 14, and 15), out of 5 residents observed. Specifically, staff failed to perform hand hygiene during personal cares and medication administration. This failed practice had the potential to place all residents at risk of contamination and transmission of infections.Findings: Resident #5 Record review on 9/22-26/25 revealed Resident #5 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (non-insulin-dependent diabetes). An observation on 9/23/25 at 12:55 PM, revealed Licensed Nurse (LN) #2 prepared Resident #5's insulin injection at the medication cart wearing gloves. LN #2 walked over to Resident #5 and offered him/her the medication. Resident #5 agreed and LN #2 pushed him/her in his/her wheelchair to his/her room wearing the same gloves. Without changing gloves or performing hand hygiene, LN #2 cleansed an area on Resident #5's abdomen with an alcohol wipe and administered the…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-11-13 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — pattern
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY .Based on record review, interview, and observation, the facility failed to ensure that 3 Residents (#'s 2, 4, and 15), of 8 sampled residents, received adequate supervision to prevent falls. This failed practice placed these residents at risk for injury, impaired mobility, pain, and reduced well-being. Findings: Resident #2 Record review on 9/22-26/25 revealed Resident #2 was admitted with diagnoses that included cerebrovascular accident (CVA - also known as stroke, when blood flow to a part of the brain is stopped either by a blockage or the rupture of a blood vessel). Further review revealed that Resident #2 had multiple falls: 6/25/25, 7/29/25, and 9/20/25. The fall that occurred on 9/20/25 resulted in a major injury. Review of Resident #2's care plans, dated 6/24/25 and 9/23/25, revealed: . [Resident #2] has limited physical mobility. AMBULATION: The resident uses rolling walker for walking . LOCOMOTION: [Resident] uses rollator for locomotion . Review of Resident #2's care plan, last review completed on…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-04-25 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — pattern
    Ensure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure insulin (a medication for blood sugar maintenance) orders were followed for 2 residents (#5 and #10), out of 3 residents reviewed who received insulin. Specifically, the insulin orders were written to be administered before meals, and the insulin was administered after meals. This failed practice placed these residents at risk for experiencing potential adverse effects for not receiving insulin per the physician's orders. Findings: Resident #5: Resident #5 was admitted with diagnoses that included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with unspecified complications and essential hypertension (high blood pressure). Record review on 4/22/24 of Resident #5's insulin order, dated 2/14/24, revealed: Novolog Flex Pen [insulin] Subcutaneous [injection under the skin] Solution Pen-Injector 100 unit/ml [milliliter] (insulin aspart). Inject 8 unit subcutaneously before meals related to Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with unspecified complications . (This medication is a rapid-acting anti-diabetic medication to help regulate blood…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-04-25 · tag F0623 — isolated
    Provide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a copy of 2 residents' (#8 and #12) transfer notices were sent to the Office of the State Long Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman. This failed practice had the potential to affect all residents, based on a census of 17, by: 1) denying residents the added protection from being inappropriately discharged ; 2) providing the residents with access to an advocate who can inform them of their options and rights; and 3) ensuring the Office of the State LTC Ombudsman was aware of facility practices and activities related to transfers and discharges. Findings: Resident #8: Record review from 4/22-25/24 revealed Resident #8 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included dementia, epilepsy, stroke, and a history of falls. Further review revealed Resident #8 was hospitalized and discharged from the facility on 12/12/23 with a return anticipated and readmitted on [DATE]; discharged and hospitalized on [DATE] with a return anticipated and readmitted on…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-25 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed and implemented with specific medical care needs for 1 resident (#8), out of 9 sampled residents. Specially, the facility failed to address risk factors or include specific information concerning the resident's prescribed anti-platelet medication (that inhibits the ability of platelets to clump together as part of a blood clot and could cause the risk of bleeding) in the resident's care plan. This failed practice had the potential to place the resident at risk for inconsistent care that could result from the many risk factors of the anti-platelet medication. Findings: Record review from 4/22-25/24 revealed Resident #8 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included dementia, epilepsy, stroke, and anemia. Further review revealed the resident had a history of falls. Review of Resident #8's Skin/Wound Note, dated 12/10/23, revealed: When Elder came to lunch, noticed left eye to be black and swollen. Palpated [felt] eye and around eye, Elder denies any pain or…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-02-02 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the MDS (Minimum Data Set-a Federally required assessment) was coded accurately for 2 residents (#s 4 and 12), out of 9 sampled residents, and 1 resident (#19), out of 2 closed record reviews. The failure to ensure the MDS was accurately coded placed the residents at risk for ineffective care planning. Findings: Diagnosis miscoding: Record review on 1/30/23-2/2/23 revealed both Resident #'s 4 and 12 were admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included dementia. Review of Resident #4's MDS assessment, a quarterly assessment dated [DATE], revealed the resident's dementia diagnosis was not coded. Further review of the resident's previous MDS assessments, dated 9/6/22 and 6/6/22, revealed the dementia diagnosis was coded. Review of Resident #12's MDS assessment, a quarterly assessment dated [DATE], revealed the resident's dementia diagnosis was not coded. Further review of the resident's previous MDS assessments, dated 9/19/22 and 6/19/22,…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-02-02 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were individualized for 1 resident (#13), out of 9 sampled residents. This failed practice placed the resident at risk for not receiving the necessary care and services to address his/her individual needs. Findings: Record review on 1/30/23-2/2/23 revealed Resident #13 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included adult failure to thrive and chronic kidney disease. During an interview on 1/31/23 at 11:30 AM, Resident #13 stated he/she asked the staff for water when he/she was thirsty because the staff watched how much fluid he/she drank. Review of Resident #13's current comprehensive care plan, revised on 12/3/22, revealed: Encourage fluids during the day to promote prompted voiding responses. Review of the Resident's current physician orders revealed an order for a 2 Liter Fluid restriction [related to] hyponatremia [low blood sodium levels] with a start date of 4/29/22. During an interview on 2/1/23 at 4:07 PM, Licensed Nurse (LN) #1 stated Resident #13 was on a fluid…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-02-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure infection control procedures were properly implemented. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure staff removed soiled gloves and performed hand hygiene after completing dirty tasks to clean tasks. This failed practice had the potential to affect all residents, based on a census of 17, for risk of the spread of infectious disease. Findings: An observation on 2/1/23 at 9:38 AM revealed Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #s 2 and 3 assisted Resident #10 to use the bathroom. Both CNAs wore gloves. CNA #2 was assisting the resident on one side to hold onto the handrail, while CNA #3 prepared the wet wipes. CNA #2 assisted the resident to a standing position after Resident #10 had a bowel movement. CNA #3 wiped the resident's anal area with wet wipes three times and discarded the soiled wipes in the trash can. CNA #3, while still wearing the soiled gloves, pulled Resident #10's brief and pants up, fixed the resident's jacket, and touched one of the handles of the wheelchair. Further observation revealed CNA…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
Ownership Data Not Available

The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$8.7M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+41.1%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 100%Medicare 0%Other / private 0%

About 100% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$810per resident / day
operating cost
$24,617per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$1,375per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in AK

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Alaska Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in Alaska
$27,831/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$10,798/mo
Nursing home (private)*
$9,882/mo
Assisted living

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner. The starred figure is the national median (no state figure published).

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 025035. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-13, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next