Hillview Terrace

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

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.

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.

49.7% 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 54 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 33.3% 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 24 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 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 41% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 143 beds and averages 138.7 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 4.53 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.41 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.95 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 3.81 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.82 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.46 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% 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 6 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.

16 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 6 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · F2020-03-05 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
  Procure 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 review of policies: Personal Cleanliness and Standards and Beard Restraints, as well as current (2017) Food Code regulations, the facility failed to ensure staff: 1) covered all hair during the preparation and distribution of food on the 03/04/20 lunch tray line; and 2) washed hands after handling soiled equipment and before putting on another pair of gloves to resume food handling tasks. This had the potential to affect all 124 residents for whom meals were prepared and served at the time of this survey. Findings include: 1) The (undated) facility policy titled Personal Cleanliness and Standards stated the following: .Hair restraints should be worn at all times . The facility policy, Beard Restraints (undated) specified: Dietary employees must either be clean shaven or wear a beard restraint if facial hair is present to effectively keep their hair from contacting exposed food, clean equipment, utensils, and linens. The 2017 Food and Drug Administration Food Code mandates under regulation 2-401.11 (A) .FOOD EMPLOYEES shall wear hair restraints…

  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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2020-03-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
  Provide 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 observations, interviews, medical record reviews, a review of the facility policies titled, Hand Hygiene and Administration of Medication, and review of [NAME] and Perry's, FUNDAMENTALS OF NURSING, the facility failed to ensure: 1) Employee Identifier (EI) #6, Registered Nurse (RN), did not take a stethoscope from a bowl on the nurse's station into Resident Identifier (RI) #18's room to auscultate placement of RI #18's gastrostomy tube without cleaning the stethoscope before or after use. Further, the nurse failed to wash hands prior to medication administration, and prior to rinsing the plunger and syringe before storage; 2) EI #7, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), did not turn off an oxygen concentrator with her bare hand and then apply gloves to administer RI #91's nebulizer treatment without washing her hands. Further, EI #7 did not wash hands and change gloves to rinse and dry RI #91's nebulizer mask and reservoir for storage; 3) EI #8, LPN, did not place a medication cup containing medications…

  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 · D2020-03-05 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
  Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
  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, medical record review and review of Potter and [NAME], Fundamentals of Nursing, Ninth Edition, the facility failed to ensure Employee Identifier (EI) #6, Registered Nurse (RN), followed a physician's order to administer 30ML (milliliters) of water prior to medication administration for Resident Identifier (RI) #18. This affected RI #18, one of eight residents observed during medication administration observation, and one of five nurses observed. Findings Include: A review of Potter and [NAME], Fundamentals of Nursing, Ninth Edition, Chapter 23, Legal Implications in Nursing Practice, page 311, revealed: .Health Care Providers' Orders .Nurses follow health care providers' orders unless they believe that the orders are in error . RI #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including, Dysphagia following Cerebral Infarction. A review of RI #18's Physician's Orders for the Month of February 2020, revealed the following order: .ADMINISTER 30ML OF WATER PRIOR TO…

  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 · D2018-12-20 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolated
  Keep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
  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, review of the facility's document titled, Resident Rights and the facility's policy and procedure titled, RESIDENT RIGHT TO ACCESS AND VISITATION, the facility failed to ensure staff did not open Resident Identifier (RI) #15's mail prior to delivering it to him/her. This affected RI #15, one of one sampled resident whose mail was received opened by the facility. Findings Include: A review of the facility's policy titled, RESIDENT RIGHT TO ACCESS AND VISITATION ,without a date, revealed the following: .Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines . 4. The resident will have the right to access mail . to receive letters .The resident has the right to privacy in these communications . A review of the facility's form titled, Resident Rights revealed the following: .The resident has the right to . receive mail .the resident has the right to have reasonable .privacy of their use of .communication . RI#15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis of Chronic Respiratory…

  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 · D2018-12-20 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect 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 interview, record review and a review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Prevention, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #107 was free from physical abuse that involved RI #31. This affected RI #107, one of two residents identified for abuse. Findings Include: A review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Prevention with a revised date of 12/20/18, revealed the following: . III. PREVENTION . 3. residents' rights which include the right to be free of abuse . A review of the State Agency Intake Information, dated 12/06/18, regarding resident on resident physical abuse revealed the following: . Review of a FRI (Facility Reported Incident) received on 12/6/18 revealed that (RI #31) punched (RI #107) in the shoulder and leg . 1. RI #31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including NonTraumatic Subdural Hemorrhage, Schizoaffective Disorder and Schizophrenia. A review of RI #31's current Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed RI #31 had a Brief…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2018-12-20 · 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interviews, and a review of the facility's policy titled, CAREPLANS, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #27's care plan was followed for wound care to the tracheostomy site . This affected one out of 46 residents whose care plans were reviewed. Findings Include: A review of the facility's policy titled, CAREPLANS without a date, revealed the following: .Procedure 1. A care plan will be developed and implemented . RI #27 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Quadriplegia Unspecified and Adjustment Disorder With Depressed Mood. A review of the RI #27's current Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed RI #27's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating cognition was intact. A review of RI #27's care plan titled, ACTUAL SKIN BREAKDOWN which was updated on 11/30/18, revealed the following: . wound care to trach site. Change daily (with) NS (normal saline) . On 12/18/18 at 11:07 AM, during…

  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 · Ecited before2018-02-05 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
  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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, interviews, and review of the facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans, the facility failed to ensure: 1) Resident Identifier (RI) #87 had a fall mat placed at bedside on two of seven days of survey; and 2) RI #s 48, 69, and 87 had person-centered care plan interventions in place addressing their toileting and/or incontinence needs. These failures affected three of 32 residents for whom care plans were reviewed. Findings include: 1) RI #87 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Muscle Weakness, Unspecified Dementia, Difficulty Walking, and Repeated Falls. RI #87's most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/21/2017, documented RI #87 had severely impaired cognition. The assessment also indicated RI #87 had sustained two falls since the prior assessment or readmission, one with no injury and one with major injury. RI #87's current comprehensive care plans, last reviewed 01/04/2018, included…

  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 · E2018-02-05 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — pattern
  Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on a test tray, meal observations and resident interviews, the facility failed to consistently serve food palatable in taste and temperature to the residents. This affected RI #s 18, 56, 35, 170, 78, 88, 103, 54, and 173, nine of 29 sampled residents. Findings included: Throughout the survey, residents were interviewed regarding food palatability. Comments included: a) RI #18 (on 01/30/18 at 3:25 p.m.) stated The food doesn't have a good flavor. b) RI #56 (on 01/31/18 at 3:41 p.m.) described the food as bland, with no taste; mostly no seasoning. The resident also commented that a lot of the time the food was not hot. c) RI #35 (on 01/30/18 at 6:08 p.m.) said the food did not taste good or was tasteless. On 02/01/18 the resident was observed to receive a baked sweet potato on the lunch tray. The resident explained he/she did not eat it because it was raw in the center. RI #35 stated the baked potatoes were often not completely cooked in the center. d) RI #170 commented on 01/30/18 the food had no taste and was cold. e) RI #78 stated the baked potatoes were usually not done 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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2018-02-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
  Provide 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 observations of incontinence care and medication administration, review of the facility's policies titled: Oral Inhalers, Eye Drops, Hand Hygiene, Standard Precautions Infection Control, and Handling Linen, as well as a review of medical records, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff utilized good infection control practices .as follows: 1) Staff provided no barrier prior to placing supplies (for catheter and perineal care) on the bedside tables of Resident Identifier (RI) #17 and RI #170. 2) Licensed and unlicensed staff placed bags of soiled and/or clean linen directly on the floors of RI #17 and RI #69's rooms. 3) Staff failed to wash hands after changing gloves and before donning clean gloves during the care of RI #69 and RI #367. 4) Licensed staff handled clean linen and the brief of RI #69 with dirty gloves. 5) Licensed staff did not wash hands before and after administering an inhaler to RI #367, and failed to place a barrier on the resident's over-bed table, before placing…

  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 · D2018-02-05 · 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, interviews, and review of the facility's Voiding Pattern Rosters for Resident Identifier (RI) #76, the facility failed to ensure RI #76's 10/05/17 quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment and 12/25/17 annual MDS assessment, accurately reflected RI #76's incontinence status. This affected one of 32 residents for whom MDS assessments were reviewed: Findings include: RI #76 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Type Two Diabetes Mellitus, Essential Hypertension, and Dementia. RI #76's quarterly MDS assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/05/2017, documented RI #76 was occasionally incontinent of urine, which indicated less than seven incontinent episodes during the assessment period (09/29-10/05/17). However, review of RI #76's Voiding Pattern Roster from 09/29/17 through 10/05/17, indicated RI #76 was incontinent of urine, 19 of 20 documented occurrences during the assessment period. RI #76's annual MDS assessment, with an ARD of 12/25/17,…

  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

“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.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to REHAB SELECT — 5 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 →

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 files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

2 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 88% 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 $1.7M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% 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