Ridgeview Skilled Nursing Facility

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.

70.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 136 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 53.9% 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 178 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 1.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 98% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 25% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 45 beds and averages 30.7 residents a day — about 68% occupied, or roughly 14 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 5.33 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 2.16 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.72 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 4.49 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.69 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 2.32 to 1.79 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 55% 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 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.

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.

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

• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-24 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
  Immediately 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 and record review, the facility failed to follow their policy and procedure related to notification of the physician when one of three residents (Resident 1) who had a foley catheter (a thin flexible tube inserted through the urethra( the duct by which urine is conveyed out of the body) into the bladder to drain and collect urine) had episodes of low urine output on different shifts. This failure had the potential to affect Resident 1's health condition. Findings.A review of the facility's admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Nondisplaced Fracture of the Sacrum (a break in the base of the spine) and Neuromuscular Dysfunction of the Bladder (issues with bladder control and function). On 11/24/25 at 11:45 A.M., an interview and record review with Licensed Nurse (LN)1 was conducted. LN 1 stated Resident 1 had a foley catheter for Neurogenic Bladder (condition in which a person lacks bladder control). LN1 stated Resident 1's intake and output…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-24 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to follow the written care plan related to documenting intake and output for one of three residents (Resident 1) who had a foley catheter and passing low amount of urine. This failure had the potential to cause serious complications and could harm Resident 1's health. Findings.A review of the facility's admission Record indicated, Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosed which included Nondisplaced Fracture of the Sacrum (a break in the base of the spine) and Neuromuscular Dysfunction of the Bladder( issues with bladder control and function). On 11/24/25 at 11:45 A.M, an interview and record review with Licensed Nurse (LN) 1 was conducted. LN 1 stated a care plan for Resident 1's foley catheter use was in place. LN1 stated during the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) shift, the CNA emptied Resident 1's urinary bag, recorded the output, and inform the charge nurses of the total urine output at the end of their shift. A review of Resident 1's care…

  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 · D2025-11-24 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
  Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
  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 and record review, the facility failed to monitor and identify episodes of low urine output and communicated to the physician for one of three residents (Resident 1). This failure had the potential to cause worsening symptoms for Resident 1.Findings.A review of the facility's admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included nondisplaced fracture of the sacrum (a break in the base of the spine) and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder(issues with bladder control and function). On 11/24/25 at 11:45 A.M., an interview and record review with Licensed Nurse (LN)1 was conducted. LN 1 stated Resident 1 had a foley catheter (a flexible tube inserted through the urethra into the bladder to drain and collect urine) for Neurogenic Bladder. LN1 stated Resident 1's intake and output should be recorded every shift to ensure bladder function. A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a federally mandated resident assessment tool) dated 9/19/25, indicated a…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-14 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement interventions consistent with resident's needs to eliminate or reduce the risk of falling for one of four residents (Resident 1) reviewed for accidents when: Adequate assistance was not provided to Resident 1, who required total assistance with activities of daily living (ADL-bathing or showering, getting in and out of bed or a chair, turning, walking, toileting and eating). This failure resulted in Resident 1 falling off the bed.Findings:Resident 1 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia (total or partial paralysis of one side of the body) and hemiparesis (muscle weakness on one side of the body) following other cerebrovascular disease (a condition affecting blood flow and blood vessels in the brain) affecting the left side and left femur (thigh bone) fracture according to the facility's admission Record. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a federally mandated resident…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-12 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
  Immediately 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 and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician promptly when two of four residents (Resident 22 and Resident 31) had significant weight changes (weight loss or gain). As a result of this deficient practice, residents were placed at risk for delayed treatment. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 22's admission record indicated the resident was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] for diagnosis including Alzheimer's disease (a disease characterized by a progressive decline in mental abilities). A review of Resident 22's Weights and Vitals Summary indicated 13.7 pounds (Lbs) of weight loss between 5/1/25 and 6/3/25: 6/3/25 185.2 Lbs 5/1/25 198.9 Lbs On 6/11/25 at 10:59 A.M., an interview and record review was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN 12). RN 12 reviewed Resident 22's Weight and Vitals Summary dated 5/1/25 and 6/3/25 and stated the resident had a weight loss of 13.7 Lbs (6.9%) over a month. RN 12 stated the resident's weight loss was significant and concerning. RN 12…

  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 · D2025-06-12 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  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 and record review the facility failed to ensure one of three residents (Resident 31) with a diagnosis of congestive heart failure (CHF, when the heart cannot pump blood effectively) was provided care and treatment according to acceptable standards of practice when: 1. Resident 31's weight was not taken daily as prescribed by the Medical Doctor (MD). 2. Resident 31 was not assessed for potential fluid overload (a condition where there was too much fluid in the body) after a 9.5 pound (lbs) weight gain. These failures had the potential to exacerbate the resident's congestive heart failure. Cross reference F580 and F726. Findings: A review of Resident 31's admission Record, dated 6/12/25, indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident 31's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a comprehensive assessment tool) Section I, dated 5/30/25, indicated the resident had an active diagnosis of Heart Failure. A review of Resident 31's Physician Orders dated 5/26/25, indicated an…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-06-12 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
  Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
  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, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the intake of a nutrition intervention was measured for one of 19 sampled residents (Resident 20) with significant weight loss. The facility did not ensure a nutritional supplement for a resident who triggered for significant weight loss was accurately measured. This failure had the potential to cause more weight loss and further impair the resident's nutritional status. Findings: Resident 20's admission Record dated 6/10/25 was reviewed. The Resident admission initial date was 4/12/25 and was readmitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Chronic Diastolic (Congestive) Heart Failure (CHF-a heart disorder which causes the heart to not pump the blood efficiently), Iron Deficiency Anemia (a condition where the body does not have enough healthy red blood cells) and muscle weakness. A review of Resident 20's Nutrition Evaluation dated 4/17/25 completed by RD, indicated, Heart Healthy, low fat, low cholesterol, 2-2.5 grams Sodium diet with a…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-06-12 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolated
  Ensure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
  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 and record review the facility failed to ensure that two of four licensed nurses (LN 4 and RN 12) were competent to provide care for a resident (Resident 31) with a diagnosis of congestive heart failure (CHF, a condition where the heart does not pump blood as well as it should). This failure had the potential for Resident 31 and other residents with CHF to experience negative outcomes related to fluid overload (a condition where fluid builds up in the body). Cross reference F580 and F684. Findings: A review of the Facility Assessment updated 6/9/2025, indicated .Most common Diagnoses: Over Past 12 Months Details: Heart Disease with various complications A review of Resident 31's admission Record, dated 6/12/25, indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure. A review of Resident 31's Physician Orders dated 5/26/25, indicated an active order for Daily Weight in the morning If wt [weight]. gains more than 3lbs…

  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.

  Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-06-12 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
  Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
  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 and record review, the facility failed to provide medication as ordered by the prescriber for three weeks for one of five residents (Resident 20) reviewed for pharmacy services. This deficiency resulted in the facility's failure to provide a medication to meet the needs of the resident according to the prescribed orders. Findings: A review of Resident 20's admission Record indicated the resident was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 6/12/25 at 8:11 A.M., a medication administration observation was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 12. RN 12 was observed preparing medications to administer to Resident 20. Vitamin B-12 was not administered to Resident 20. A review of Resident 20's physician orders dated 5/17/25, indicated the resident was to receive Vitamin B-12 Oral Tablet Extended Release 1000 mcg (micrograms) once a day in the morning. A review of Resident 20's medication administration record (MAR) indicated Vitamin B-12 1000 mcg was not given to Resident 20 from…

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

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-06-12 · tag F0802 — failed to prepare enough nourishing food — isolated
  Provide sufficient support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen staff received appropriate training in food sanitation and food safety according to standards of practice and facility policy when: 1. One cook did not demonstrate the proper method of testing the sanitizer solution used for sanitization (the process of safely removing waste to prevent disease transmission and improve hygiene) on equipment and food prep surfaces to prevent cross contamination. 2. One cook did not demonstrate proper method on thickening for a puree soup for one resident. These failures had the potential to expose residents to bacterial contamination, that could result in food borne illnesses for all residents who consume food from the kitchen. The facility census was 19. Cross references F812 Findings: 1. During a kitchen observation and interview on 6/11/25 at 3:35 P.M. with [NAME] (CK 2), CK 2 demonstrated how he tested the sanitizer concentration level in the red buckets. CK 2 filled a red bucket with water and sanitizer. CK 2 dipped an ammonia test strip into a red…

  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

“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

$33,238 in federal fines across 6 penalties.

• $4,938 — penalty dated 2024-02-20
• $12,534 — penalty dated 2024-01-22
• $3,418 — penalty dated 2024-01-08
• $2,823 — penalty dated 2024-01-02
• $6,351 — penalty dated 2023-12-11
• $3,174 — penalty dated 2023-11-06

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 CONTINUING LIFE — 6 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

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.

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.

A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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

Cost & finances

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

What families pay in CA