Buckhead Center for Nursing & Healing

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.

58.8% 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 144 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 36.4% 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 88 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 0.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 29% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 40% 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 179 beds and averages 154.1 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 25 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.21 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.26 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.96 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 2.71 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.41 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.32 to 0.10 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

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

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.

21 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 10 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · G2024-07-25 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
  Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that two of six residents (R) (R56 and R63) reviewed for pressure ulcers received consistent care and services. The facility failed to implement repositioning and offloading pressure devices resulting in harm when R56 acquired a stage 4 sacral wound and an unstageable right lower leg wound. Findings included: 1. A review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed that R56 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of quadriplegia. Other diagnoses included a pressure ulcer of the sacral (lower back) region (unstageable) and a pressure ulcer of the right heel (unstageable). A review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/19/2023 revealed R56 scored 15 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating no cognitive impairment; R56 was totally dependent on staff for all Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care including bed mobility due…

  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 · E2026-03-24 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — pattern
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that four of six resident shower rooms were free of hazards. Specifically, razors were found on the floor, dirty gloves found on a shower bed, opened bottles of bath soap were found, a bottle of chemical resistant spray was found, and a razor and hair clippers were found in a bag on the floor of a shower room. The deficient practice had the potential to cause injury to cognitively impaired residents and the possibility of the spread of infection to residents using the shower rooms.Findings include:Observation on 02/23/2026 at 9:25 AM with the 4th floor Unit Manager BB of the 4th floor shower room used by the residents revealed four razors on the floor, dirty gloves and a dirty comb were on a shower bed, floors were stained/dirty, an opened gallon bottle of complete bath soap and a bottle of chemical resistant spray were observed in the shower room. Additionally, a razor and hair clippers were found in a black bag on the floor of the shower room, and a shower cap and a toothbrush were found lying on 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-03-24 · 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

  Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the staff followed standard and transmission-based precautions to prevent the spread of infection when dispensing ice to the residents on two of four floors (3rd and 4th floor).Findings include:Observation on 03/23/2026 at 9:15 AM with the 4th floor Unit Manager of the ice scoop and scoop cover revealed the ice scoop cover on top of the ice machine had black specks near the end of the scoop used to put ice in cups.Interview on 03/23/2026 at 10:00 AM with the 4th floor Unit Manager BB revealed that the scoops were cleaned once a week by the kitchen staff. She revealed that the scoop should be clean.Observation on 03/24/2026 at 10:50 AM with the 3rd floor Unit Manager HH of the ice chest/cooler used to serve residents, revealed the scoop submerged in ice and water.Interview on 03/23/2026 at 9:20 AM with the Maintenance Director AA revealed that they were required to clean the ice machine. He revealed the ice machine was checked weekly and monthly. He revealed that the nursing staff was responsible for…

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

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-09-25 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to properly label and date several items in the refrigerator. This failure had the possibility to expose 116 of 128 residents residing at the facility to food items that may have been spoiled. Findings include: During the Flash Tour of the kitchen on 9/22/2025 at 8:12 AM, there were items in the reach in fridge that were not labeled or dated. The items found were: two plates of salad, 12 small containers/bowls of dessert, and 16 small glasses of iced tea. The Dietary Manager (DM) was present and confirmed the findings. During an interview on 9/25/2025 at 8:45 AM, the DM stated the kitchen staff had been educated on labeling and dating all opened or stored items in the refrigerator. The DM explained whoever placed the items in fridge was responsible for labeling and dating those items.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-09-25 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — pattern
  Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to monitor and follow up on weight loss for three of six sampled residents (Resident (R) 9, R10, and R23) reviewed for weight loss. This deficient practice had the potential to allow residents to continue to lose weight and not be monitored for supplements or change in diet.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Weight Monitoring revised January 2024 revealed, Policy: Based on resident's comprehensive assessment, the facility will ensure that all residents and maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight or desirable body weight range and electrolyte balance, unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that is not possible of resident preferences indicate otherwise. Compliance Guidelines: Weight can be a useful indicator of nutritional status. Significant unintended changes in weight (loss or gain) or insidious weight loss (gradual unintended loss over a period of time) may indicate a nutritional problem. 1. The facility will…

  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 · D2025-09-25 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, resident and staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience for one of five residents observed for nutrition (Resident (R) 15. This failure had the potential to negatively impact quality of life and self-esteem of R15.Findings include:Review of a facility's policy titled, Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity, dated March 2025 indicated .It is the practice of this facility to protect and promote resident rights and treat each resident with respect and dignity as well as care for each resident in a manner and in an environment, that maintains or enhances resident's quality of life by recognizing each resident's individuality.All staff members are involved in providing care to residents to promote and maintain resident dignity and respect resident rights.1. Review of R15's electronic medical record (EMR) titled, admission Record, located under the Profile tab, indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-09-25 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolated
  Allow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
  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, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure two (Residents (R5) and R1) of a survey sample of 33 residents were invited to participate in the quarterly care plan meeting. This failure has the potential to violate resident rights, including the care plan not reflecting their preferences.Findings include:Review of R5's EMR failed to contain evidence that the resident was invited to her quarterly care conferences.During an interview on 9/22/2025 at 9:31 AM, R5 stated she did not get invited to her quarterly care conferences.During an interview on 9/23/2025 at 3:24 PM, the Director of Social Services (DSS) stated she invited residents who had a high BIMS score to their quarterly care conferences. The DSS confirmed that R5's representative was invited but not the resident.During an interview on 9/24/2025 at 2:45 PM, the DSS stated there were no prior quarterly care conferences identified for R5 in the EMR and confirmed R5 was her own…

  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 · D2025-09-25 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
  Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the call light was accessible for one of 33 residents (Resident (R) 99) observed in the Initial Pool. This failure placed R99 at risk of falling and injuries or distress when he could not access the call light to alert staff of an emergency or unmet needs.Findings include:Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Answering the Call Light revealed, When the resident is in bed or confined to a chair be sure the call light is within easy reach of the resident.Review of R99's admission Record, located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed he was admitted with diagnoses including but not limited to stroke affecting left non-dominant side, tracheostomy status, and gastrostomy status.Review of R99's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 9/8/2025, located under the MDS tab of the EMR, revealed R99's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating he was rarely/never understood. R99 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-25 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
  Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, resident, resident responsible party, and staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care for one (R128) out of 33 sampled residents. This failure had the potential to negatively affect R128.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, dated April 2024 indicated, Policy: It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent.neglect.Definitions.Neglect means failure of the facility, its employees, or service providers to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines:The facility will develop and implement written policies and procedures that: a. Prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property; b. Establish policies 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-09-25 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolated
  Ensure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
  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, records review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure two residents (Resident (R) 131, R152) were free from significant medication errors out of a total of 33 sample residents during one of the two residents' insulin administration observation and record reviews. These failures had the potential to cause hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia episodes in insulin-dependent residents.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Errors, dated September 2023, stated the facility must ensure it is free of medication error rate of five percent (%) or greater as well as significant medication error events.- Medication error, means the observed or identified preparation or administration of medications. which is not in accordance with the prescriber's order; manufacturer's specifications (not recommendations) regarding the preparation and administration of the medication.- Significant medication error, means one which causes the resident discomfort or jeopardizes…

  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 · D2025-09-25 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
  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, resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that food preferences were honored for one out one of 33 sampled residents (Resident (R) 49).Findings include:Review of an undated facility policy titled, Resident Nutrition Services indicated .Each resident is provided with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs, taking into consideration the preferences of each resident.Review of R49's electronic medical record (EMR) titled, admission Record located under the Profile tab indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE].Review of R49's EMR titled quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) located under the MDS tab with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 7/19/2025 indicated the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 out of 15, which revealed the resident was moderately cognitively impaired.During an interview on 9/22/2025 at 9:54 AM,…

  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

$10,033 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $10,033 — penalty dated 2024-07-25

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 EMPIRE CARE CENTERS — 20 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 8 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

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 74% 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 $3.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 21% 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 GA