Corning Specialty Care
1614 Northgate Drive, Corning, IA 50841 · Non profit - Corporation · 40 certified beds · (641) 322-4061 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (19) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 9.0% | 17.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.9% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.9% | 1.5% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.2% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 3.8% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.1% | 16.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.0% | 20.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 84.6% | 95.3% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.0% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.8% | 25.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 22.6% | 19.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 25.0% | 73.3% | 79.4% | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.15 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 11% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% 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.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.3%CMS range 6.4–15.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 96.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.16 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 40 beds and averages 25.0 residents a day — about 62% occupied, or roughly 15 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 3.43 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.74 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.03 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.16 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.53 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.82 to 0.57 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.
19 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 9 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-18 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure 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 clinical record review, observation, staff interviews, policy review and manufacturer's instructions the facility failed to properly prime an insulin pen and administer insulin per the manufacturer guidelines for 1 or 3 residents observed for insulin administration to ensure the proper amount of insulin administered (Resident #4). The facility reported a census of 25 residents. Findings include:The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #4 had diagnoses of diabetes. The MDS documented the resident took insulin. The Care Plan revised 10/31/25 revealed the resident had diabetes and took insulin medication.The Medication Administration Record for Resident # 4 listed Lantus insulin 14 units subcutaneously (SQ) once a day for hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) was administered on 2/16/26 during the scheduled AM medication pass by Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). During observation on 2/16/26 at 10:35 AM, Staff A, LPN, attached a needle on the end of a Lantus insulin…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on direct observation, record review, staff interview, facility policy review, and Iowa Food Safety guidelines, the facility failed to serve food to residents in a safe and hygienic manner by making bare skin contact with residents food during the serving process and while assisting residents to eat for 2 of 3 meals observed. The facility reported a census of 25. Findings include: 1. A direct continuous observation of meal preparation and service on 02/17/2026 starting at 11:00 AM and ending at 12:36 PM revealed the following: At 11:28 AM Staff D, Cook, made direct bare skin contact with ready-to-eat foods when she used her fingers to push a slice of cake off of a spatula onto a plate for resident consumption. At 11:29 AM Staff D again made direct bare skin contact with cake, using her fingers to lift and place a slice of cake from the spatula onto a plate. At 11:39 AM Staff D made bare skin contact with a grilled cheese sandwich, holding it down with her hands and cutting it in half. This was then served…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-28 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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
Based on clinical record review, facility document review, staff interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to provide dignity to 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1). The facility failed to provide dignity to the residents as demonstrated by a staff telling the resident to complete their own peri care when assistance was requested by the resident. The facility reported a census of 25 residents. Findings Include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #1, dated 1/15/25 in progress, identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15/15 indicating normal cognitive functioning. The resident had diagnoses of other fractures, seizure disorder or epilepsy, and Schizophrenia. The document identified the dependence for toileting hygiene and lower body dressing, and significant/maximal assistance for transfers and bed mobility. The document revealed frequent incontinence of bladder or always incontinent of bowel. Resident #1's Care Plan dated 3/24/25 revealed a focus area of Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) initiated on 1/10/25 with interventions including healing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-28 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on documents reviewed, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to report an alleged violation of verbal abuse in a timely manner. The facility failed to report observed verbal interactions between a staff member and Resident #1 within the required timeframe. The facility reported a census of 25. Findings include: The Intake Information to the State Agency for the Facility Reported Incident (FRI) revealed a submission date and time of 2/19/25 at 7:45 PM. The document revealed the date of the alleged abuse occurred on 2/19/25. On 5/27/25 at 12:42 PM Staff B, Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA), stated she heard Staff G, CNA, tell Resident #1 you did this to yourself, so you can get yourself up and clean yourself up. Staff G initially stated she notified the Director of Nursing (DON) within 24 hours of the incident, then stated she notified the DON immediately as the primary nurse was on a break. On 5/27/25 at 12:55 PM Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), stated she heard the comment made by Staff G to Resident #1, and separated the staff from the resident. Staff…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-01-23 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop 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, resident and staff interviews, clinical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to develop and implement a Comprehensive Care Plan for 7 of 12 residents (Resident #10, #11, #13, #17, #22, #76, and #176) reviewed for care plans. The facility reported a census of 26 residents. Findings include: 1. On [DATE] at 9:49 AM, Resident #76 was observed lying in bed watching television. He stated he had been on oxygen (O2) for about 3 years. The oxygen delivery setting on his concentrator was observed at 4 liters per minute (LPM) or (L) via nasal cannula (NC). The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated completely intact cognition. It included diagnoses of Atrial Fibrillation (abnormal heart beat), Coronary Artery Disease (narrow or hardened heart arteries), and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). It did not include the resident's use of oxygen but was still being completed at the time of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-01-23 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to identify target behaviors for psychotropic medication use for 5 of 12 residents reviewed (Resident #10, #11, #13, #17, and #22). The facility reported a census of 26 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #10 dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 out of 15 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS included diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder, Depression, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). It did not identify any lack of pleasure, interest or feeling down/depressed, or potential indicators of psychosis. It also revealed the resident exhibited behavioral symptoms not directed toward others, but indicated the identified symptoms put the resident at significant risk for physical illness or injury, significantly interfered with resident's care, and with the resident's participation in activities or social interactions. It further…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-01-23 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 observation, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards by not dating open food items or dispose of expired food items and not appropriately wearing hair restraints (hair nets). The facility reported a census of 26 residents. Findings include: 1. On 1/21/25 at 8:24 AM an observation revealed a single door freezer had a bag of open undated sausage patties. The double door refrigerator had a container of strawberries that were expired on 1-19-25, a pitcher of tomato juice that expired on 1/18/25, a 46 oz box of prune juice that was open and undated and a 46 oz box of cranberry juice cocktail that was open and undated. The dry storage had a 16 oz bag of potato chips that were open and undated and 8 bottles of Worcestershire sauce that was best if used by 7/23/24. On 1/21/25 at 8:51 AM Staff A, Dietary Services Manger stated all drinks in pitchers were good for 3 days. Staff A acknowledged the pitcher of tomato juice and the container of strawberries were expired. Staff stated all food should be dated when the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-23 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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, resident and staff interviews, clinical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to revise a resident's Care Plan to include a newly inserted indwelling catheter. The facility reported a census of 26 residents. Findings include: On 1/21/25 at 10:32 AM, Resident #16 stated he had an indwelling catheter (urinary catheter) for about 6 months per his request. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated a completely intact cognition. It included diagnoses of hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus (DM), pneumonia, Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), hemiplegia (one-sided weakness), and difficulty walking. It indicated the resident was independent with eating, required set-up assistance with oral and personal hygiene, required maximum assistance with toilet transfers, and was dependent with lower body dressing and toileting hygiene. It also revealed the resident was frequently incontinent. The Electronic Health…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-23 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure 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
Based on observations, clinical record review, resident and staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to provide the needed services in accordance with professional standards by not following physician orders for 1 of 12 residents (Resident #176) reviewed. The facility reported a census of 42 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #176 dated 1/18/24 was an admission Medicare - 5 day document and did not contain a Brief Interview of Mental Status score, diagnoses, medications, or treatments. The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) included diagnoses of depression, hypertension, and pain. Review of Resident #22 Physician Orders dated 1/20/25 identified the resident was ordered to have oxygen (O2) continuously at 3 Liters (L) every night shift. The Hospital Discharge document dated 1/18/25 revealed O2 administration 3 L at night (HS). The Order Summary Report dated 1/20/25 indicated O2 continuously at 3 L every night shift. Resident #176's Care Plan initiated on 1/19/25 revealed altered respiratory status/difficulty breathing related to COPD and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-23 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility procedure review the facility failed to protect a resident from a possible accident and injury by pushing the resident in a wheelchair without foot rests for 1 of 12 residents (Resident #11) reviewed. The facility reported a census of 26 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #11 dated 10/30/24 identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS included diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder, and Depression. It revealed the resident required substantial or maximum assistance for sit to/from stand positions, and transfers to/from bed, wheelchair and toilet. It further indicated the resident utilized a manual wheelchair and could wheel at least 150 feet with setup assistance. Resident #11's Care Plan revealed he required substantial to dependent assistance for transfers to/from the wheelchair. Observation on 1/21/25 at 12:26 PM revealed Staff E, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) pushed Resident #11 from the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 9 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-23 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure 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 observation, staff interviews, clinical record review and policy review the facility failed to ensure the residents were free of significant medication errors to 1 of 6 residents reviewed (Resident #16). The facility reported a census of 26 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident #16 entered the facility on 3/23/22. The MDS documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment. The MDS documented Resident #16 had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia. Review of Resident #16's Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented an order for insulin glargine solution (Lantus)100 UNIT/ML inject 50 unit subcutaneously one time a day in the morning. On 1/22/25 at 7:18 AM an observation of Staff B Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) drawing insulin to administer to Resident #16 revealed Staff B removed Lantus insulin from the medication cart, cleansed the insulin bottle septum with an alcohol wipe,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-23 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure 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 observations, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to provide food at an appetizing temperature to 3 of 26 residents reviewed. The facility reported a census of 26 residents. Findings include: On 1/21/25 at 11:45 AM an observation of lunch service revealed Staff A completed hand hygiene and started lunch service. Two mechanical soft roast beef in portions on a plate and a single puree portion of roast beef in a bowl placed on the steam table after being prepared in the food processor. Staff A acknowledged intent to serve mechanical and puree plates. Temperature check requested by surveyor of puree and mechanical soft roast beef. The temperature of the mechanical soft roast beef on the plates were 99 degrees and 97 degrees. The temperature of the puree roast beef was 92 degrees. Staff A heated all 3 dishes in the microwave. Pureed roast beef heated to 152.6 and mechanical soft roast beef heated to 152.7 and 158.2. On 1/22/25 at 8:29 AM Staff A stated a temperature of 155 - 165 would be an acceptable temperature to serve the mechanically altered food. Staff…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-23 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident and staff interview, clinical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure accurate and complete resident records for 1 of 12 residents reviewed. Resident #22 did not have an inventory sheet in her record, and the resident stated she had lost a phone. The facility reported a census of 26 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #22 dated 12/4/24 identified a BIMS score of 15 out of 15 which indicated normal cognitive impairment. The MDS included diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder and depression. The Electronic Medical Record (EHR) Progress Notes reviewed from 3/1/24 to 1/23/25 revealed the resident had made a report of a missing jacket on 8/16/24, which was found. Other Progress Note entries revealed the resident had a vehicle that was full of belongings, and lived in multiple locations prior to admission to the facility. The notes reflected the resident having stacks of items in her room and does not like assistance with these items or for people to touch her items. The Care Plan dated 12/6/24 did not reveal Resident #22…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-05 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each 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 record view, family, staff, clinic staff and physician interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 residents went to their follow up appointments post hospitalization (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 26 residents. Findings include: According to the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool with a reference date of 5/23/24, Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8. A BIMS score of 8 suggested mild cognitive impairment. The MDS documented the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The following diagnoses were listed for Resident #1: sepsis, anemia, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, septicemia, stroke, malnutrition, anxiety, and depression. The Care Plan focus area with an initiation date of 5/31/24 documented Resident #1 had a biliary drain. The After-Visit Summary dated 5/4/24 through 5/17/24 was faxed to the facility on 5/17/24, to the previous Director of Nursing (DON). The summary included the following scheduled appointment: a. May…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-08 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, guidance from the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), and staff interview, the facility failed to document the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment to accurately reflect the resident status for 4 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #5, #16, #19 and #21). The facility reported a census of 24 residents. Findings include: 1. The MDS of Resident #5 dated 11/18/23 documented the resident was currently taking an anticoagulant medication. The Care Plan of Resident #5, revision date 2/5/24 documented the resident to be on antiplatelet therapy related to atrial fibrillation. The Medication Administration Report (MAR) for Resident #5 for the month of November, 2023 failed to reveal documentation of the resident receiving any anticoagulant medication. The MAR reflected the resident received 81 mg of aspirin, delayed release, daily in the month of November. 2. The MDS of Resident #16 dated 11/4/23 failed to document the use of anti-anxiety medication. The Care Plan of Resident #16, revised 2/5/24 documented Resident #16 to be taking two separate anxiety…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-02-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 observation, staff interview, facility policy review, and the 2022 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code, the facility failed to prepare, serve and distribute food in accordance with professional standards. The facility reported a census of 24 residents. Findings include: During a continuous observation on 02/05/24 at 11:45 AM Staff C, Dietary Services Manager, completed pureeing the main entree. The staff then took the entree's temperature and found it to not be at the required degree. Staff C used a new alcohol pad and wiped the thermometer, and placed the thermometer uncovered on the serving counter with the dirty wipe. The staff placed the pureed entree in the microwave to bring it up to the correct temperature. Staff C took the thermometer from the serving counter and used it to check the regular roast beef on the warmer. The staff utilized the same alcohol wipe from the pureed entree to wipe off the thermometer after the regular roast beef. Staff C placed the used wipe on the serving counter again, and used it following temperature checks for the chicken patty,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-08 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, resident interview, family interview, staff interviews, and the facilities admission Agreement, the facility failed to exercise reasonable care for the protection of the personal property for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #5). The facility reported a census of 24 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) of Resident #5, dated 11/18/23, identified a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. On 2/5/24 at 1:00 pm, Resident #5 stated she had a Smart Phone when she admitted to the facility which was lost shortly after she admitted . She stated she reported this loss to the facility and several staff members looked for it but it was never found. She said the staff told her she must have knocked it off her table and into the trash and it probably went out with the trash. Resident #5 stated her trash can was across the room from where her chair was and this could not have happened. The facility did not assist with the replacement of the lost phone and her family ended up replacing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-08 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to revise and implement care plans for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #12) reviewed. The facility reported a census of 24 residents. Findings include: Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #12 dated 1/12/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 indicating intact cognition. The MDS further revealed diagnosis of cancer, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, intervertebral disc degeneration in the lumbar region, spinal stenosis, and wedge compression fracture of the fourth lumbar vertebrae. Review of Resident #12's Care Plan dated 1/5/24 revealed Resident #12 ambulates with assistance of 1 staff using a four wheeled walker. Further review of the care plan revealed Resident #12 requires assistance of 1 staff when transferring, or toileting. Review of a facility provided document dated 1/24/24 from a book title, Staff Communication Book, revealed a note from physical therapy stating Resident #12 may be independent in her room using a 2 wheeled walker. During 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility staff failed to change gloves and sanitize hands during cares, failing to maintain infection control practices during incontinence care for 1 of 1 residents reviewed (Resident #11). The facility reported a census of 24 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) of Resident #11 dated 12/30/23 reflected the resident frequently incontinent of bladder and always incontinent of bowel. The MDS reflected the resident to be dependent on staff for toileting hygiene. The Care Plan, revised 8/9/20, documented Resident #11 needed help with her activities of daily living due to a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. It directed staff to provide incontinency cares as needed. On 2/7/24 at 12:49 observed Staff A, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) and Staff G, Certified Nurse aide provide cares to Resident #11 with a transfer from her wheelchair to her bed and incontinence cares. Hand hygiene was performed by both staff members prior to transferring the resident via Hoyer mechanical lift 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CARE INITIATIVES — 43 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
The other 42 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 42; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CARE INITIATIVES | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 08/01/1989 |
| COMPUTERSHARE CORPORATE TRUST COMPANY, NA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | — | since 02/01/2025 |
| BEAL, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/01/2020 |
| BOWEN, LANE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| CAROTHERS, MARY JANE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| CHILDS, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2023 |
| CORLESS, PETER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| KREIN, KEITH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/29/2022 |
| RUST, ELIZABETH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| STURM, DENISE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| UPMEYER, LINDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/29/2022 |
| DIXON, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/01/2016 |
| DRAKE, EMILY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/04/2023 |
| GILYARD, TANYA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/23/2025 |
| KUHN, JERAMY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/25/2008 |
| MCDYER, JESSICA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/22/2023 |
| BOEVE, DESTINY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| GIJIMA, DESIRE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| RINNER, MEGAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/09/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 22 rows in the source record cover these 19 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.
This home reported $248K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 IA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Iowa Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 165285. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-18, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.