Merry Wood Lodge
280 Mt Hebron Road, Elmore, AL 36025 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 124 certified beds · (334) 567-8484 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- CMS lists it as a Special Focus candidate — not on the watch list itself, but among the homes CMS is watching because of its recent inspection history
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0607, F0610) — most recent Oct 2024
- inspectors cited 5 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $182,968 in federal fines (most recent 2024-09-01)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 fell from 2 to 1 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 | 12.3% | 12.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.2% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.7% | 1.0% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.3% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 6.8% | 1.4% | 6.5% | typical |
| 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 | 1.4% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.2% | 12.1% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.4% | 24.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.8% | 5.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.3% | 12.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.9% | 21.2% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 6.2% | 2.0% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.8% | 80.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 10.9% | 24.8% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.6% | 11.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.86 | 1.96 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.65 | 1.70 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
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.
34.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 32 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 37.9% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 29 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.35 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 59% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. 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
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 34.1%CMS range 23.3–52.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.1%CMS range 7.6–18.0 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 37.9% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 44.8% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 51.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 77.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. 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 discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. 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 stay | 2.8% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 11.1% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.11 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 124 beds and averages 98.6 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 25 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.24 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.78 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.91 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 2.89 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.38 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.89 to 0.51 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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 2 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.
17 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · L2024-09-01 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — widespreadAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review, review of the facility's investigative file, review of the facility's abuse policy titled Abuse Prohibition, and review of the job responsibilities of the Administrator (ADM), the ADM failed to ensure the Abuse Policy was implemented, failed to investigate abuse thoroughly, failed to identify abuse, and take appropriate action for prevention of abuse. On 07/01/2023, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA #14) reported that she grabbed Resident Identifier (RI) #398's wrists to keep RI #398 from hitting her to Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #17. The incident was not reported to the Administrator (ADM) and no protective measures were implemented until 07/06/2023. On 07/06/2023 red and purple discolorations were noted on RI #398 's bilateral arms and wrists. The ADM failed to substantiate the allegation of physical abuse despite the CNA stating that she grabbed RI #398's wrists. The facility's investigation did not determine the cause of the bruising. The facility allowed CNA #14 to return to work at the facility. It was determined the facility's…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · L2024-09-01 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — widespreadSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review, review of facility policies titled Abuse Prohibition and Center Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Process, the facility failed to ensure the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee reviewed and analyzed an allegation of abuse in a manner to analyze causes and implement preventative actions. The committee failed to identify physical abuse against Resident Identifier (RI) #398 and failed to identify concerns with identification, reporting, investigation, and protection for an allegation of physical abuse reported to the State Agency (SA) on 07/06/2023. It was determined the facility's non compliance with one or more requirements of participation had caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents. The Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was cited in reference to 483.75-Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement. On 08/30/2024 at 7:32 PM, the ADM and the Director of Nursing (DON) were provided the IJ template and notified of the findings at the immediate jeopardy level in the area of…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-09-01 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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, residents' record review, review of a facility policy titled Abuse Prohibition, review of Facility Reported Incidents (FRIs) received by the State Agency, and review of the facility's investigative files, the facility failed to protect residents right to be from abuse perpetrated by staff of the facility. On 07/01/2023 Resident Identifier (RI) #398 was physically abused by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #14. This deficiency was cited as the result of the investigation of complaint /report #AL00044697. The facility further failed to ensure RI #48 was free from abuse perpetrated by CNA #10. On 03/10/2024 RI #48 was physically abused by CNA #10. The facility further failed to substantiate the allegations as abuse. These deficient practices affected RI #48 and RI #398, two of four sampled residents reviewed for employee to resident abuse. This deficiency was cited as a result of the investigation of FRI/complaint/report numbers AL00044697 and AL00047200. After retrospective Quality Assurance…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-09-01 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
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, record review, review of the facility's investigative file and review of the facility's abuse policy titled Abuse Prohibition, the facility failed to ensure the abuse policy was implemented following an incident of staff to resident physical abuse. The facility failed to ensure the incident was identified by licensed staff as abuse and protective measures were immediately implemented to prevent further potential abuse. The facility further failed to ensure the incident was reported to the Administrator (ADM) within two hours and thoroughly investigated to identify that abuse occurred and to ensure appropriate actions were taken to prevent further potential abuse. On 07/01/2023, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA #14) reported to Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #17 that she grabbed Resident Identifier (RI) #398's wrists to keep RI #398 from hitting her. The incident was not reported to the ADM and no protective measures were implemented until the family reported the incident on 07/06/2023. 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-09-01 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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, record reviews, review of the facility's abuse policy titled, Abuse Prohibition, review of Facility Reported Incidents (FRIs) received by the Alabama State Survey Agency, and review of the facility's investigative files, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of staff to resident physical abuse was thoroughly investigated to identify that abuse occurred, determine if bruising was a result of the abuse, and take appropriate action to prevent further potential abuse. On 07/01/2023, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA #14) reported to Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #17 that she grabbed Resident Identifier (RI) #398's wrists to keep RI #398 from hitting her. The incident was not reported to the Administrator (ADM) and no protective measures were implemented until 07/06/2023. On 07/06/2023 red and purple discolorations were noted on RI #398 's bilateral arms and wrists. The ADM failed to substantiate the allegation of physical abuse despite the CNA stating that she grabbed RI #398's wrists. 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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-10-17 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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, resident record review, review of the facility investigative files, review of Facility Reported Incidents (FRI), and review of a facility policy titled Abuse Prohibition, the facility failed to protect the rights of Resident Identifier (RI) #22 and RI #21, to be free from verbal and physical abuse perpetrated by RI #101. Specifically, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and interventions per facility policy to prevent occurrences of abuse perpetrated by RI #101. RI #101 was admitted to the facility in July of 2024 with Dementia and Behaviors and was care planned for exhibiting physical behaviors. On 10/04/2024 RI #101 hit RI #22 in the chest while in the dining area for the lunch meal. Witnesses stated, RI #22 put his/her hands up in self-defense while being hit and someone in that situation would feel very upset and scared. Further, on the next day 10/05/2024, just after every 15-minute monitors for the incident the day before had ended, the facility failed to provide…
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 · Fcited before2024-09-01 · 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
Based on observations, interviews, the 2022 United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code, and a facility's policy titled Environment, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen floor was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all residents who received meals from the facility's kitchen. Findings Include: A review of 2022 United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code, documented: (A) PHYSICAL FACILITIES shall be cleaned as often as necessary to keep them clean . A review of policy titled Environment Revised 9/2017 documented: .The Dining Services Director will ensure that the kitchen is maintained in a clean and sanitary manner, including floors, walls, ceilings, lighting, and ventilation . On 08/20/2024 at 10:16 AM, the Surveyor along with the Dietary Manager conducted an initial inspection of the kitchen. During the tour, it was noted that the kitchen floor was sticky, and an unidentified black substance was present in both the center and corners of the floor. On 08/22/2024 at 11:52 AM, a follow up kitchen…
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 · F2024-09-01 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, review of a facility policy titled, Environmental Services Policies and Procedures and review of the 2017 U.S. (United States) Public Health Service Food Code, the facility failed to ensure the grounds around the dumpster's were free of a burn pile with an accumulation of discarded cardboard boxes piled on top of the burn pile. This had the potential to attract rodents and pests and affect all 98 residents living in the facility. Findings Include: A review of the the 2017 U.S. (United States) Public Health Service Food Code revealed: . 5-501.110 Storing Refuse, Recyclables, and Returnable's. REFUSE, . shall be stored in receptacles or waste handling units so that they are inaccessible to insects and rodents . 5-501.115 Maintaining Refuse Areas and Enclosures. A storage area and enclosure for REFUSE, . shall be maintained free of unnecessary items . and clean . The facility manual entitled Environmental Services Policies and Procedures included a policy titled ENV207 with a revision date of 03/01/2024 which documented: .Trash is removed from 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.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2020-03-03 · 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
Based on observations, interviews and a review of a facility policy titled, Food Storage: Cold Foods, the facility failed to ensure: 1. outdated food was not stored in the walk-in cooler, and 2. food items were labeled with a received date or use by date prior to storage in the walk-in cooler/reach-in freezer. These failures had the potential to affect 89 residents receiving meals from the kitchen out of 92 total residents residing in the facility. Findings Include: The facility policy titled, Food Storage: Cold Foods, with a revised date of 4/2018, included . Procedures . 5. All foods will be stored . labeled and date, and arranged . to prevent cross contamination . On 02/29/20 at 01:18 p.m., the surveyor observed food items in the walk-in cooler. There was one container of Sliced Peaches with no prepared date or use by date, one container of Strawberries prepared on 01/23/20 and labeled with a use by date of 01/30/20, one container of Prepared Yellow Salad Mustard with an opened date of 12/25/19 and labeled with a use by date of 01/25/20, and one bag of turkey with an open date of…
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 · D2020-03-03 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
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 interview, record review and review of a facility policy titled Change in Condition: Notification of the facility failed to contact Resident Identifier (RI) # 24's resident representative when his/her diet was changed to pureed in August 2019. This affected 1 of 20 sampled residents. Findings Include: A review of policy titled Change in Condition: Notification of, with an effective date of 11/28/16, documented: .A Center must immediately inform the patient's Health Care Decision Maker (HCDM) where there is: .A need to alter treatment significantly (that is, a need to discontinue or change an existing form of treatment due to adverse consequences, or to commence a new form of treatment . RI # 24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Vascular Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance. RI # 24 also had a diagnosis of Dysphagia, with an onset date of 8/01/19. A review of RI # 24's diet orders documented the following: 8/13/19 .Resident's diet downgraded to pureed due to coughing…
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 · D2020-03-03 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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, interviews, review of the consultant pharmacist's February 2020 Medication Regimen Review reports, and review of policies titled 9.1 Medication Regimen Review and 3.8 Psychotropic Medication Use, the facility failed to ensure the consultant pharmacist identified concerns during the February 2020 medication review with Resident Identifier (RI) #24's Seroquel, an antipsychotic medication, that was ordered on 1/27/20 without adequate justification for use. This affected RI #24, one of six sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: Review of the policy titled 9.1 Medication Regimen Review, dated 11/28/16, revealed the following: .PROCEDURE . 1.1 The drug regimen of each skilled nursing facility resident must be reviewed at least once a month by a licensed pharmacist . Review of the policy titled 3.8 Psychotropic Medication Use, revised 11/28/16, revealed the following: POLICY This Policy 3.8 sets forth procedures relating to psychotropic medication use.…
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 · D2020-03-03 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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, interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled Psychotropic Medication Use, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #24 was not given Seroquel, an antipsychotic medication, without a diagnosis or medical justification to warrant its use. This affected RI #24, one of six sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: Review of the policy titled 3.8 Psychotropic Medication Use, revised 11/28/2016, revealed the following: POLICY This Policy 3.8 sets forth procedures relating to psychotropic medication use. DEFINITION A psychotropic drug is any medication that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior, PROCEDURE . 3. Psychotropic medications may be used to address behaviors only if non-drug approaches and interventions were attempted prior to their use. . 8. Antipsychotic medications used to treat Behavioral or Psychological Symptoms of Dementia (BPSD) must be clinically indicated, be supported by an adequate…
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 · D2020-03-03 · 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 record review, interview and review of a facility policy titled Medication: Administration: General, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff documented administration of Resident Identifier (RI) #24's Norco on 01/28/20 and 01/30/20 on the Medication Administration Record (MAR). This affected 1 of 20 sampled residents whose MARs were reviewed. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy titled Medication: Administration: General, revised 11/1/19, documented: .11. Document: 11.1 Administration of medication on Medication Administration Record (MAR) . RI # 24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Vascular Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance. RI #24's Physician's Orders included an order for Norco to be given every six hours as needed for pain, with a start date of 1/27/20. A review of RI # 24's Narcotic Record for January 2020 documented one dose of Norco was taken out on 1/28/20 and another on 1/30/20. However, review of RI # 24's January 2020 MAR did not reflect Norco was…
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 · E2018-12-13 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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 observations, record review, interviews, and review of the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for a bottle of shampoo, the facilty failed to ensure: 1) Resident Identifier (RI) #46 was not observed repeatedly plugging and unplugging an electrical cord within reach of his/her bed; and 2) RI #21, a cognitively impaired resident, did not have access to a bottle of shampoo, that posed the risk for eye irritation and was identified as potentially harmful if swallowed. On 12/13/18, RI #21 was observed applying the shampoo to another resident's hair (RI #54) during an activity being held in the secure/dementia unit. These failures affected one of 22 sampled residents with electrical outlets in their rooms, and had the potential to affect all 33 residents residing on the secure unit. Findings include: 1) RI # 46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Severe Intellectual Disabilities and Retinal Disorder. A review of RI #46's Annual MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, with an ARD…
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 · D2018-12-13 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #46's electrical outlets were blocked as specified on his/her care plan. This affected one of 22 residents for whom care plans were reviewed. Findings include: RI # 46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Severe Intellectual Disabilities and Retinal Disorder. A review of RI #46's Annual MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 10/19/18, revealed RI # 46 had severely impaired cognitive skills and he/she required limited assistance from staff for all Activities of Daily Living. Review of RI #46 's comprehensive care plans revealed an intervention dated 1/26/18 for the following: . Provide (RI #46) with a barrier free environment; electric outlets blocked, walls free of removable items because (RI #46) runs (his/her) hands up and down walls as (he/she) walks about all areas . On 12/11/18 at 10:36 AM , RI #46 was observed in bed pulling the plug…
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 · C2024-09-01 · tag F0851 — widespreadElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and review of the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data Report, the facility failed to report accurate staffing data to the Centers for Medicare & (and) Medicaid Services (CMS). This affected the second quarter of the PBJ Staffing Data Report for 2024 (January 1, 2024 - March 31, 2024). Findings include: Review of the CMS PBJ Staffing Data Report for the second quarter of 2024 revealed the following: . Excessively Low Weekend Staffing . Result . Triggered . Definition . Triggered = Submitted Weekend Staffing data is excessively low . On 08/29/2024 at 12:18 PM, an interview was conducted with the former Staffing Manager (SM). The former SM said when she was the SM her job was to make sure the floors were staffed with the right amount of Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) and Nurses according to the census. The surveyor shared with the former SM that according to the PBJ Staffing Data Report from CMS, the facility triggered for Excessively Low Weekend staffing for the second Quarter ( January 1 - March 31, 2024). The former SM said the assignment sheets would…
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 · C2020-03-03 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure Nurse Staffing information was posted on Saturday, 2/29/20, when the survey team entered the building. This was observed on 2/29/20 and had the potential to affect all 92 residents residing in the facility, as well as family and visitors in the facility. Findings include: On 2/29/20 at 1:00 p.m., the survey team entered the facility and observed the Nurse Staffing information posted; the posting was dated for the previous day, 2/28/20, instead of for the current date and shift. On 3/03/20 at 3:17 p.m., Employee Identifier (EI) # 6, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), was interviewed. EI # 6 was asked who was responsible for ensuring Nurse Staffing information was posted daily on the weekends. EI # 6 said the first hall nurse was responsible. EI # 6 further stated she had been the nurse working on the 1st hall on 2/29/20. When asked if she had posted the Nurse Staffing information that day, EI # 6 said no, she forgot. EI # 6 said she should have posted the staffing information for 2/29/20 that morning. EI # 6 was asked 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.
“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.
- 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
$182,968 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $182,968 — penalty dated 2024-09-01
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-10-01 for 42 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to GENESIS HEALTHCARE — 184 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 1 of 5 | 2.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.3 | -1.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 183 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 183; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
CMS ownership filings flag an owner of this facility as an investment firm. That’s a fact worth knowing about who ultimately profits from the home. Read the inspection and staffing record above on its own merits.
- HCCF MANAGEMENT GROUP XI LLC — investment firm · 14.73% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
Source: CMS SNF ownership filings (PECOS). These flags are self-reported and undercount — federal auditors (GAO) and researchers find CMS captures only a fraction of true private-equity and REIT ties, so the absence of a flag on other homes is not proof they lack investor owners. How investor ownership affects care →
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GENESIS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 02/02/2015 |
| FC-GEN OPERATIONS INVESTMENT LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 02/02/2015 |
| GEN OPERATIONS I LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 02/02/2015 |
| GEN OPERATIONS II LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 02/02/2015 |
| GENESIS HEALTHCARE INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 02/02/2015 |
| GENESIS HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 02/02/2015 |
| SUN HEALTHCARE GROUP INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 02/02/2015 |
| WHITMAN, ARNOLD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 02/02/2015 |
| BOLEN, JOEL | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2024 |
| HUFFMAN, LARRY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2024 |
| BERG, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/02/2015 |
| BRIDGEFORD, LAURA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/01/2024 |
| MENDELSON, AVI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 13 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
7 organizational owners 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.
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.
About 79% 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. This home reported $1.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). 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 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 015019. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-09-01, 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.