Clay County Nursing Home
83825 Highway 9, Ashland, AL 36251 · Non profit - Other · 83 certified beds · (256) 354-2131 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- 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 (4/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 4 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 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 4 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.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 28.1% | 12.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.4% | 5.4% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.1% | 1.0% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.5% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.2% | 1.4% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 7.4% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.1% | 12.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.0% | 24.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.1% | 5.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.9% | 12.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 23.6% | 21.2% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 11.5% | 2.0% | 1.4% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.05 | 1.96 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.23 | 1.70 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ 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.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 83 beds and averages 70.6 residents a day — about 85% occupied, or roughly 12 beds 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 3.73 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.64 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.23 is below 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 3.14 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.97 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.76 to 0.32 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as 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
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 4 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
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.
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 · D2022-03-16 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
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, observations, interviews, review of a Facility Assessment and Activity Calendars, and review of an Activities policy, the facility failed to provide adequate facility-sponsored group or individual/independent activities to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of Resident Identifier (RI) #65, one of two residents reviewed for activities in the secured Memory Care Unit (MCU). Findings included: A review of a policy titled Activities, last reviewed in June of 2021, revealed, . It is the policy of [the facility] to provide an activities program that is appropriate to the needs and interests of each resident that shall encourage self-care, resumption of normal activities, maintenance of optimal self-functioning and contact with the environment .Procedure .The planned activities program shall be suited to the needs, abilities, and interests of each resident .A variety of supplies and equipment shall be available to satisfy the activities needs and…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2019-05-16 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — patternProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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 observations, interviews, and review of [NAME] and [NAME], FUNDAMENTALS OF NURSING, Ninth Edition, Chapter 48 Skin Integrity and Wound Care, the facility failed to ensure: 1) a Registered Nurse (RN) cleaned Resident Identifier (RI) #57's wound and washed hands and changed gloves prior to applying treatment (Venelex ointment); and 2) an RN removed gloves and washed hands after cleaning RI #169's wound, prior to applying the treatment. This affected two of two sampled residents reviewed for pressure ulcers and two of two wound care observations. Findings include: Review of [NAME] and [NAME], FUNDAMENTALS OF NURSING, Ninth Edition, copyright 2017, Chapter 48 Skin Integrity and Wound Care, pages 1224-1225, revealed the following: . SKILL 48-2 TREATING PRESSURE ULCERS . Implementation 1. Perform hand hygiene . 2.expose ulcer and surrounding skin . apply clean gloves. 3. Clean ulcer thoroughly with normal saline or cleaning agent . 4. Remove gloves, perform hand hygiene, and apply clean or sterile gloves. 5.…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2019-05-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 observation, interviews, and review of the facility's policies titled Medication Administration Route: Nebulizers and Infection Control Hand Hygiene, the facility failed to ensure: 1) Licensed staff washed and dried a nebulizer cup prior to placing it in a plastic bag after completing the nebulizer treatment for Resident Identifier (RI) # 5; 2) a Registered Nurse (RN) washed hands prior to applying gloves after completing wound care for RI # 169; and 3) an RN washed hands after completing wound care for RI # 57. These failures affected RI # 5, one of one resident observed for a nebulizer treatment, and RI #s 169 and 57, two of two residents observed for wound care. Findings Include: 1) A review of a facility Policy Titled : Medication Administration Route: Nebulizers, with a revised date of July 22, 2014, documented: . 9. Clean . nebulizer cup with a clean paper towel. When dry, store in a plastic bag . RI# 5 was readmitted to the facility 3/19/2019 with a diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary…
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.
- Potential for harm · F2018-06-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
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 observations, interview, review of facility policies titled DEFROSTING MEATS and MIGHTY SHAKES, and review of the 2017 Food Code, the facility failed to ensure: 1) frozen raw chicken was not thawed under running water exceeding 70 degrees Fahrenheit (F). Further, at the time staff was preparing the chicken for the meal, the chicken measured 75.6 degrees F; and 2) thawed nutritional health shakes were labeled in a manner such that the use by date was evident. These failures had the potential to affect all 72 residents receiving meals from the dietary department. Findings include: 1) Review of the facility policy titled DEFROSTING MEATS, reviewed March 2017, revealed the following: POLICY: A. Meats must be handled in a safe and sanitary manner. Since bacteria growth is not killed by freezing, then care must be taken in defrosting meats. 1. Remove frozen meat to be defrosted from freezer two days in advance. 3. All frozen meat is to be defrosted under refrigeration, unless cooking is to be done from frozen…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2018-06-21 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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 observation, interview, medical record review and a review of the facility's policy titled, SAFETY FROM SKIN TEARS, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #31's geri-chair bilateral armrest did not have tattered, torn and exposed areas. This affected one of 1 resident observed in a gerichair. Findings Include: A review of the facility's policy titled, SAFETY FROM SKIN TEARS with a review date of June 2017, revealed the following: POLICY . It is the policy of (name of facility) to attempt to keep residents safe from skin tears and bruising. PROCEDURE 1. Residents . at risk for skin tears or bruising will have protective padding applied to sharp/hard edges of devices that may cause harm. ( . side rails, arm rests .) RI #31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including: Senile Dementia With Psychosis, Osteoarthritis, Dementia With confusion and Hypertension. a review of RI #31's current Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed RI #31's Brief Interview for…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2018-06-21 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
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 observation, interview, medical record review and a review of the facility's policy titled, MEDICATION ADMINISTRATION, the facility failed to ensure licensed staff did not leave the medication cart unlocked, unattended and out of staff's view at all times. This affected one of 8 residents and one of 4 nurses observed during medication pass. Findings Include: A review of the facility's policy titled, MEDICATION ADMINISTRATION with a revised date of May 2018, revealed the following: . PROCEDURES; . 4. Medication carts should be in sight of nurse during preparation time and locked when unattended. RI # 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including: Diabetes, Dementia, Anxiety Disorder and Parkinson's Disease. A review of RI #8's Quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed RI #8's Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 8, indicating moderately impairment in cognition. On 06/20/18 at 11:05 AM, the following was observed during medication pass: Employee Identifier (EI) #6,…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2018-06-21 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
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 interviews, medical record review, and a review of the facility's policy titled NOTIFICATION OF CONDITION/ORDER CHANGES, the facility failed to ensure a licensed nurse documented Resident Identifier (RI) #29's left heel wound status and measurements were documented. This affected RI #29, one of 23 sampled resident reviewed documentation. Findings Include: A review of the facility's policy titled, NOTIFICATION OF CONDITION/ORDER CHANGES, with a revised date of November 2016, revealed the following: POLICY . E. The nurse . shall document changes on the resident's medical record. RI #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including: Diabetic Type II, Left Hemiparesis, Cerebrovascular Accident and Degenerative Arthritis. A review of the RI #29's pressure ulcer wound measurements for 06/12/18 and 06/15/18 revealed the left inner aspect of heel measured 2 x (by) 3 cm (centimeter) x 3 cm, and depth not measurable. On 06/20/18 at 4:25 PM, during an observation of RI #29's wound/pressure ulcer…
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.
- No harm found · B2022-03-16 · tag F0582 — patternGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, review of SNF Beneficiary Protection Notification Review forms, and review of a policy titled Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Coverage (SNFABN), the facility failed to provide SNFABN forms to Resident Identifier (RI) #36, RI #66, or RI #216, three of three residents reviewed for proper SNFABN. Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Coverage (SNFABN), last reviewed in June of 2021, indicated the facility would . issue SNFABN to beneficiaries as required by CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] . The facility will issue the SNFABN when a resident goes off Medicare days .The beneficiary or their authorized representative must sign the signature box to acknowledge that they read and understood the notice . On 03/14/2022 at 1:44 PM, RI #36, RI #66, and RI #216 were selected for review for provision of an ABN. Blank SNF Beneficiary Protection Notification Review forms were provided to Employee Identifier (EI) #16, Business Office Manager, to fill out. Amongst…
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.
- 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.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CARPENTER, JULIA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 12/08/2009 |
| CRAWFORD, CYNTHIA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 12/08/2009 |
| GLENN, DONNA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 12/08/2009 |
| GRABEN, ROBIN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 11/06/2011 |
| JACKSON, KATHY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 12/08/2009 |
| JARMON, TIMOTHY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 12/08/2009 |
| LUKER, LENNIE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 08/03/2009 |
| MILLER, DAVID | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 12/08/2009 |
| PERRY, BELEVER | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 12/08/2009 |
| SMITH, LINDA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 12/08/2009 |
| TOMLIN, KERRY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 12/08/2009 |
| WILKINSON, KATTIE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 10/23/2011 |
| WILLIAMS, MARY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 12/08/2009 |
| BURDETTE, GERALD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/08/2009 |
| CRENSHAW, BOBBY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/08/2009 |
| FETNER, LARRY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/08/2009 |
| HARRIS, DWIGHT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/08/2009 |
| WOOD, BEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/08/2009 |
| CLAY COUNTY HEALTHCARE AUTHORITY | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/1966 |
| YOUNG, STEPHEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/01/2021 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
What families pay in AL
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 Alabama Medicaid page.
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.
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 015124. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2022-03-16, 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.