Rolling Green Village Care Center
100 Sixth Street, Nevada, IA 50201 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 58 certified beds · (515) 382-6556 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $9,347 in federal fines (most recent 2026-04-16)
- nursing-staff turnover (65%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 3 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 | 11.5% | 17.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.3% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 1.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.9% | 4.2% | 6.5% | better |
| 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 | 3.0% | 3.8% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.4% | 16.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.8% | 20.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 78.3% | 95.3% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.0% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 30.0% | 25.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.2% | 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 | 35.7% | 73.3% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.2% | 20.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 21.7% | 13.2% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.60 | 1.49 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.06 | 2.08 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
48.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 51 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 46.3% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 41 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 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 35% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 48.7%CMS range 36.9–59.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.4%CMS range 7.4–17.1 | 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 | 46.3% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 39.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 36.6% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 3.5% | 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 | 1.8% | 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 | 7.6%CMS range 3.9–13.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.81 | 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 58 beds and averages 44.4 residents a day — about 77% occupied, or roughly 14 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.23 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.78 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.02 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.74 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.43 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.96 to 0.34 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 65% is well above 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.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-04-16 · 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 clinical record review, written staff statement, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to provide adequate nursing supervision related to a fall and failed to ensure appropriate steps were taken after a fall to ensure resident safety for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for falls (Resident #2).The facility corrected the noncompliance prior to the start of the survey on 3/13/26 by completing the following:3/13/26: The facility started educating their employees on falls.3/13/26: The facility started educating their employees on the fall occurrence policy. 3/13/26: The facility started educating their employees on abuse prevention.3/13/26: The facility began using the audit tool on new falls to ensure the staff followed the occurrence policy and understood the fall policy.The facility reported a census of 48 residents.Findings include:Resident #2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 3/16/26, documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, indicating moderate impaired cognition. Resident #2 had diagnoses to include fractures, multiple trauma,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2024-11-14 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide 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 observation, interviews, record reviews and policy the facility failed to assess and treat a pressure ulcer for 2 of 2 residents observed with pressure ulcers (Residents #9 and #50). Resident #50 documentation indicated the facility found their pressure wound on 11/1/24. Interviews determined hospice found the pressure wound before that date. The facility, hospice staff, and Resident #50's family had a meeting before the facility documented the pressure ulcer. At the meeting, hospice reported the got an order for heel protectors for Resident #50. Resident #50's clinical record lacked documentation of the order. When the facility reported the concern to the physician, the directed to monitor the wound. Resident #50 reported she didn't like the boots because they made her feet hot. Resident #50's heel pressure ulcer declined and the facility failed to intervene to prevent the decline. Resident #9 had a pressure ulcer to their buttock. The nurse failed to provide clean technique while completing the wound…
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 · D2026-04-16 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, family interview, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to immediately notify and inform a family member (Resident #1) and the resident's physician (Resident #2) of a change in status for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for notification. The facility reported a census of 48 residents.Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 3/30/26, documented Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The resident had diagnoses to include medically complex conditions, heart failure, arthritis and respiratory failure. The Care Plan initiated 3/24/26, included a Focus that indicated Resident #1 required assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL's). The goal listed Resident #1 would receive assistance with ADLs as required. The interventions included:a. Encourage participation on ADL's. b. Gait belt with transfers and ambulation. c. Provide sufficient time for completion of ADL tasks.d. Staff will allow resident independence to the best of their ability with…
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 · D2024-11-14 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person centered Care Plan for 1 of 14 residents reviewed for Care Plans (Resident #8). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: Resident #8's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated they had symptoms of feeling down, depressed or hopeless for several days during the lookback period. The MDS included diagnoses of medically complex conditions and depression. The MDS reflected Resident #8 took an antidepressant during the lookback period. Resident #8's Medical Diagnoses reviewed on 11/14/24 listed diagnoses of major depressive disorder, recurrent, in partial remission. Resident #8's November 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) included the following orders: a. Bupropion HCI ER (antidepressant) oral tablet 150 milligrams (mg) related to Major Depressive Disorder b. Fluoxetine HCI (antidepressant) oral capsule 40 mg, related to Major Depressive Disorder…
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 · D2024-11-14 · 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 clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to revise a Care Plan for 1 of 15 residents reviewed (Residents #47). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: Resident #47's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS identified Resident #47 required set up or clean up assistance with eating. Resident #47's MDS included diagnoses of hypertension (high blood pressure), traumatic brain injury, and dysphagia (difficulty with swallowing). The MDS documented Resident #47 received a mechanically altered diet that required a change in texture of food or liquids. A Physician diet order dated 7/22/24 directed staff to administer a mechanical soft diet with pureed meats with all solids cut into bite size pieces, only soft canned vegetables or fruit, no lettuce or cabbage unless pureed and honey consistency liquids. The Share Negotiated Risk Agreement…
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 before2024-11-14 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to meet professional standards of quality for services provided during medication administration for 1 of 1 resident reviewed (Resident #51). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Finding include: Resident #51's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS included diagnoses of medically complex conditions, anemia (low iron levels in the blood), atrial fibrillation (abnormal heart rate), hypertension (high blood pressure), renal insufficiency (poor kidney function), diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia (elevated type of cholesterol), seizure disorder, respiratory failure and metabolic encephalopathy (brain dysfunction due to problems with the metabolism). The Incident Report - Medication Event dated 11/2/24 at 7:21 PM identified Resident #51 received another resident's (Resident #46) supper and hour of sleep (HS)…
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 before2024-11-14 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, facility policy review, resident, and staff interview the facility failed to keep a resident's environment free from accidents and hazards by not storing the resident's smoking materials in a secured location for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for smoking (Resident #30). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: Resident #30's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. Resident #30 used a wheelchair for mobility. The MDS further documented the resident had diagnoses to include diabetes, arthritis, Parkinson's disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and pulmonary fibrosis. Resident #30 reported shortness of breath with exertion and while lying flat. The MDS described Resident #30 as a current tobacco use. The Care Plan Focus with a target date of 12/26/24 indicated Resident #30 preferred to smoke. The Goal reflected Resident #30 would follow 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 · D2024-11-14 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, policy review and staff interview, the physician failed to respond to gradual dose recommendations (GDR) for 1 of 5 residents reviewed (Residents #9). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings included: 1. Resident #9's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, indicating intact cognition. The MDS included diagnoses of heart disease, respiratory failure, metabolic encephalopathy (brain dysfunction due to problems with the metabolism) and depression. The MDS documented Resident #9 received an antidepressant medication during the lookback period. The Care Plan Focus with a target date of 11/27/24 indicated Resident #9 used a psychotropic medication in the category of an antidepressant. The Intervention instructed to evaluate for GDR quarterly or as indicated. Resident #9's November 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) included the following psychotropic medications: a. Start date 3/25/24:…
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 · D2024-11-14 · 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, resident interview, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents are free of significant medication errors for 1 of 1 resident reviewed (Resident #51). During the orientation of one Certified Medication Aide (CMA), Staff K, the trainer gave the person in training resident's medications without ensuring they gave the medications to the correct resident. Due to it only being Staff K's second day of training she didn't know the residents and gave Resident #51, Resident #46's supper and hour of sleep medications (HS). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: Resident #51's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS included diagnoses of medically complex conditions, anemia (low iron levels in the blood), atrial fibrillation (abnormal heart rate), hypertension (high blood pressure), renal insufficiency (poor kidney…
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 · D2024-11-14 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to discard expired stock medications to avoid compromising the integrity of the medications. The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: On 11/13/24 at 2:35 PM observed the medication room across from the nurses' station with Staff B, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). The room contained the following expired items: a. 1 unopened bottle of Rubbing Alcohol 70%, 16 fluid ounces with an expiration date of March 2024. b. 1 unopened box of Assure Prism Blood Glucose Monitoring System with an expiration date of 8/25/24 c. 2 unopened bottles of Geri Dryl (similar to Benadryl) Allergy Relief with an expiration date of September 2024. In an interview on 11/13/24 at 3:10 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated she didn't know if they had a facility policy related the prevention of expired stock medications in the medication storage area but she would implement one if they didn't. She stated she expected the staff to discard all expired medications, so the staff didn't use or give them to 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 · D2024-11-14 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, menu review, observations, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to provide residents food in a form to meet the needs of 2 of 6 residents (Resident #51 and #50). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: A Physician diet order dated 10/24/24 for Resident #51 directed staff to administer a mechanical soft, ground meat diet. A Physician diet order dated 11/6/24 for Resident #50 directed staff to administer a mechanical soft texture diet. A facility menu titled Week 3 Wednesday documented the noon meal for a mechanical soft diet included a ground steak sandwich with grilled onion, potato salad with no raw vegetables, cooked broccoli cuts and maraschino cherry cake. On 11/13/24 at 11:20 AM, prior to the start of the noon meal service, observed the steam table didn't contain ground steak meat. The observation of the steak meat revealed various sizes of cut up meat. On 11/13/24 observations during the noon meal service revealed Staff A, Cook, prepared a steak sandwich with cut up meat for Resident #51. They 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 · E2023-10-26 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — patternHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on facility document review, and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) was in the facility for eight (8) consecutive hours for 5 of 31 days reviewed (September 23rd through October 23rd). The facility reported a census of 37 residents. Findings include: Review of a facility provided document titled Nurse Dept (9/23/2023-10/23/2023) revealed the facility had no RN coverage on 9/24/23, 10/7/23, 10/21/23, and 10/22/23. The document further revealed that the facility only had 4.5 hours of RN coverage on 10/8/23. During an interview on 10/26/23 at 11:21 AM with the Administrator revealed that there was no RN coverage for 8 hours on 9/24/23, 10/7/23, 10/13/23, 10/21/23, and 10/22/23. The Administrator revealed there was RN coverage from 3:30 PM-8 PM only on 10/8/23. The Administrator further revealed her expectation is for RN coverage for 8 hours a day. During a follow up interview 10/26/23 at 1:40 PM with the Administrator revealed the facility does not have a policy for staffing RN's 8 hours a day, but that it's a regulation.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-26 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to supervise administration of medication according to accepted standards of clinical practice for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for medication administration (Residents #15 and #188). The facility reported a census of 37 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident #15 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 5 out of 15 indicating severely impaired cognition. The MDS further documented the resident had diagnoses to include non-Alzheimer's dementia. The Care Plan with a target date 12/14/23 documented Resident #15 had impaired cognition such as impaired short term/long term memory, being easily confused, disorientation to person, situation and needing assist with decisions. The Care Plan had a goal the resident would accept redirection when confused. Review of Resident #15's October 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following order: a. Miralax Oral…
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 · D2023-10-26 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure each resident received necessary respiratory care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice as the facility failed to obtain a physician's order for a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and failed to ensure proper cleaning and storage of the CPAP machine, tubing, and mask for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #15) reviewed. Facility reported a census of 37 residents. Findings include: A Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #15, included diagnoses of Non-Alzheimer's Dementia and Obstructive Sleep Apnea. A Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 out of 15 indicated severe cognitive impairment for decision making. Observation and interview on 10/24/23 at 2:48 PM, a CPAP, mask and tubing were sitting on Resident #15's end stand. The resident stated he wears the CPAP at night as the CPAP helps him sleep better, the staff have to help him put the CPAP on, and he denied that the 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 · D2023-10-26 · 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
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for 37 of 37 residents. The facility reported a census of 37 residents. Findings include: On 10/23/2023 from 11:00 AM through 11:20 AM a continuous observation during the initial kitchen tour revealed: a. A 4 pound bag of Fajita Blend vegetables opened with approximately half of the vegetables gone with no open date in the double door freezer in the kitchen. b. A 4 pound bag of Country Blend vegetables opened with approximately half of the vegetables gone with no open date in the double door freezer in the kitchen. During an interview on 10/23/2023 at 11:10 AM with the Dietary Manager revealed her expectation is for opened items to have a date on the bags to show when they were opened. During an interview on 10/23/2023 at 12:43 PM with the Administrator revealed that her expectation is for items to be dated when opened in the kitchen. Review of a facility provided policy titled Frozen Food Storage, documented: Frozen leftovers will be labeled,…
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 · D2023-10-26 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, observation, staff interview, facility policy review and skills checklist review, the facility failed to maintain proper infection control practices to prevent cross contamination and potential infection of residents when providing cares and treatments. (Resident #4 and #31). The facility reported a census of 37 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #4's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating intact cognition. The MDS indicated Resident #4 required an indwelling catheter. The MDS included diagnoses of obstructive uropathy, diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder and depression. During an observation of catheter care and emptying of the catheter bag on 10/24/23 at 2:00 PM, Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) completed hand hygiene and donned appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) for Enhanced Barrier Precautions prior to entering the resident's room. Resident #4 stood in…
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
$9,347 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $9,347 — penalty dated 2026-04-16
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 LEGACY HEALTHCARE — 89 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 | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
The other 88 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 88; 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| IOWA PORTFOLIO OPCO HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 08/15/2024 |
| DOROS GENERATION TRUST U/A/D 1/3/12 | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 08/15/2024 |
| GPN FAMILY TRUST U/A/D 4/28/08 | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| OAKWAY OPERATIONS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 08/15/2024 |
| SHABAT, MENACHEM | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| LEGACY HEALTHCARE FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| BEASLEY, KARLA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| BEHOUNEK, LINSEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| BORCHERDING, JENNY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| BURKEN, SHERI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| CHATMAN, DEBRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| FRIEDENBERG, LAURA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| HEDBERG, JENNIFER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| HESS, STEVEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| HEYING, LARINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| HOUSTON, MINDY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| JAEGER, KRYSTLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| LARSON, MELISSA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| MCCLURE, DOROTHY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| OTTERBECK, PATRICIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| RAJCHENBACH, CHAIM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| SHEAR, KILEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| VAN VEGHEL, ELIZABETH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| WHYMS, BRIAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| WIERSCHEM, BOBBIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| FRIEDMAN, BRIAN | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/17/2025 |
| RAJCHENBACH, AVRUM | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/17/2025 |
| RAJCHENBACH, RIVKA | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/17/2025 |
| SHABAT, AHUVA | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/17/2025 |
| CASCADE CAPITAL HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| CASCADE CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| CCG GORGONA LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| GORGONA HOLDCO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| GORGONA PROPCO HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| GORGONA SUB HOLDCO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| MN8 RH HOLDCO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| NEVADA IA PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 60 rows in the source record cover these 37 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
13 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 $617K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in 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 165361. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-14, 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.