Aspen Transitional Rehabilitation
2867 East Copper Point Drive, Meridian, ID 83642 · For profit - Corporation · 30 certified beds · (208) 401-9100 Medicare only — no Medicaid
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Dec 2025
- 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 (15) — 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
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (57%) 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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 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 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 fell from 5 to 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 1.8% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.9% | 86.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.7% | 17.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.9% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
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.
81.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 520 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 70.2% 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 289 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 1.44 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 99% 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 | 81.7%CMS range 78.6–84.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 7.4%CMS range 5.4–9.2 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than 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 | 70.2% | 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 | 71.6% | 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 | 70.9% | 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 | 99.7% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 97.7% | 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 | 0.9% | 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 | 1.1% | 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 | 3.9%CMS range 2.1–6.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.74 | 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 30 beds and averages 29.0 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 1 bed typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.49 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.79 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.49 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 3.52 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.88 on weekdays — 28% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.93 to 0.43 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 57% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2025-12-18 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, record review, and review of the State Long Term Care Reporting System, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse, neglect, and misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #50) reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility failed to protect Resident #50 when she experienced neglect from CNA #1 during transfer from a chair to standing resulting in a fall with injury requiring hospitalization and surgery. Findings include:The facility's Abuse Policy and Procedure, version F1005, documented the facility would protect all residents from any and all forms of abuse, mistreatment, neglect, misappropriation, exploitation, or deprivation of goods and /or services.The CMS SOM, Appendix PP, dated 7/23/25, defined:Abuse, as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish.Willful, in the definition of abuse as 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 · F2025-12-18 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave 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 record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the presence of a registered professional nurse for at least 8 consecutive hours per day, as required. This failure had the potential to affect all residents in the facility who may require a higher level of nursing assessment or intervention. Findings include: Review of the facility's nursing schedule dated 11/23/25 through 12/13/25 documented the facility did not provide 8 consecutive hours of registered professional nursing coverage on the following dates: 11/23/25 - No consecutive hours 11/29/25 - No consecutive hours 11/30/25 - No consecutive hours 12/6/25 - No consecutive hours 12/7/25 - No registered nurse hours 12/13/25 - No consecutive hours On 12/18/25 at 12:12 PM, the DON stated she was unaware that the required 8 hours of registered professional nursing must be consecutive. She also confirmed the facility did not have a registered professional nurse on duty on 12/7/25.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-18 · 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 observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure each resident had a person-centered comprehensive care plan developed and implemented to meet his or her preferences, goals, and address the resident's medical, physical, mental and psychosocial needs. This was true for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #50) reviewed for care plans. This deficient practice placed residents at risk for harm when their care plan was not followed. Findings include:Resident #50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including congestive heart failure (CHF), bilateral lower leg lymphedema, and diabetes.Resident #50's care plan created on 3/28/25, documented an alteration in mobility/ safety and staff were directed to transfer her using a Hoyer mechanical lift or a 2-person assist. An Abuse Investigation Report completed by the facility documented, on 4/14/25 at 1:10 PM, Resident #50 had a fall with injury in her room while being assisted by CNA #1 from her chair…
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 · D2025-12-18 · 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 record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure nurses followed provider orders in accordance with professional standards of practice. This was true for 3 of 12 residents (#4, #27, and #38) reviewed for professional standards of care. This failure created the potential for uncontrolled pain, sedation and adverse health outcomes. Findings include:1.Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including osteoporosis with pathological fracture and a history of falls. Review of Resident #4's MAR dated 12/1/25 through 12/17/25 documented the following provider order:Oxycodone 2.5 mg by mouth three times a day for pain level 6-10, as needed. The MAR documented the following oxycodone 2.5 mg administrations outside the ordered pain range: 12/3/25 - pain level 5 (outside ordered range) 12/4/25 - pain level 5 (outside ordered range) 12/7/25 - pain level 4 (outside ordered range) 12/10/25 - pain level 5 (outside ordered range) 12/11/25 - pain level 3 (outside…
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 · D2025-12-18 · 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, review of the CMS SOM-Appendix PP, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature controls and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys. This was true for 1 of 2 medication carts observed and 1 of 1 medication storage rooms. This deficient practice had the potential for harm to a resident if they were to obtain medications which were left unattended and unsecured by staff. Findings include:CMS SOM-Appendix PP, revised on 7/24/25 and accessed on 12/19/25, documents, in accordance with State and Federal laws, the facility must provide separately locked, permanently affixed compartments for storage of controlled drugs listed in Schedule II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1976 and other drugs subject to abuse, except when the facility uses single unit package drug distribution systems in which the quantity stored is minimal and a missing dose can be readily detected.1) On 12/17/25 at 7:25 AM, the medication cart located 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-18 · 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 observation, CDC recommendation review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure infection control and prevention practices were maintained during medication preparation and administration. This failure had the potential to impact all residents in the facility by placing them at risk for cross contamination and transmission of infection. Findings include:The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) web page titled, Clinical Safety: Hand Hygiene for Healthcare Workers, updated 2/27/24, documented hand hygiene should be performed:Immediately before touching a patient.Before performing an aseptic task such as placing an indwelling device or handling invasive medical devices.Before moving from work on a soiled body site to a clean body site on the same patient.After touching a patient or patient's surroundings.After contact with blood, body fluids, or contaminated surfaces.Immediately after glove removal.The following was observed for hand hygiene and Personal Protective equipment (PPE):On 12/17/25 at 8:08 AM, LPN #1 was observed preparing a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-09-12 · 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 and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the kitchen equipment and environment was maintained, clean, and food was stored in a safe and sanitary manner. These deficiencies had the potential to affect the 28 residents who consumed food prepared by the facility. This placed residents at risk for potential contamination of food and adverse health outcomes, including food-borne illnesses. Findings include: The facility's Food Storage policy, updated on 1/9/24, documented: - Date marking will be visible on all high-risk food to indicate the date by which a ready-to-eat, TCS (Time/Temperature for Safety Food) food should be consumed, sold, or discarded. - Foods will be stored and handled to maintain the integrity of the packaging until ready for use. - All food should be covered, labeled, and dated. - All freezer units will be always kept clean and in good working condition. The FDA (Food Drug Administration) Food Code Section 3-501.17 Ready-to-Eat, TCS food, Date Marking, states marking the date or day the original container is opened in a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-12 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
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 resident and staff interview, and review of grievances, it was determined the facility failed to file a grievance which included the date the grievance was received, steps taken to investigate the grievance, and corrective action taken to resolve the grievance. This was true for 1 of 12 residents (Resident #135) reviewed for grievances and had the potential to impact residents in the facility who may want to file a grievance. This failure created the potential for Resident #135 to experience psychological harm if her grievances were not heard or acted upon. The findings include: The facility Grievance policy and procedure, updated on 9/28/22, documented that patients or representatives can voice a grievance without discrimination or reprisal from the facility. Prompt investigations and resolutions will be made for all grievances patients may have. Patients and families may file an oral or written grievance by completing the Compliment and Concern form or by a staff member. These forms should be given 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-12 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from medication errors. This was true for 2 of 5 residents (#134 and #136) whose medication administration were observed. This failure created the potential for harm to residents who received insulin to experience low or high blood sugars when they received an incorrect amount of insulin. Findings include: The American Diabetes Association website, accessed on 9/16/24, stated Priming insulin pens is recommended to remove air from needles to ensure full dose administration. The Insulin Lispro Kwikpen website accessed on 9/16/24, documented to prime insulin pen before each injection. Priming the insulin pen means removing air from the needle and cartridge that may collect during normal use and ensures that the pen is working correctly. 1. Resident #134 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including diabetes. A physician's order documented, Resident #134 was 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-12 · 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 policy review, observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure infection control measures were consistently implemented. This was true for 2 of 2 residents (#83 and #85) observed during dressing change and resident's cares when staff failed to don a gown and perform hand hygiene during dressing change and resident cares. These deficient practices placed residents at risk of infection from cross contamination. Findings include: The facility's Hand Hygiene policy and procedure, effective 11/3/23, documented handwashing should be performed before applying and removing gloves and after personal use of the toilet. 1. Resident #85 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including dementia. On 9/10/24 at 10:19 AM, CNA #2 assisted Resident #85 to the bathroom. After using the toilet, CNA #2 asked Resident #85 to stand up, Resident #85 was observed to hold on the hand rail and on the sink as she was standing up and being wiped by CNA #2. CNA #2 then…
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 · Fcited before2023-07-27 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — widespreadHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, document review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure posted contact information of independent entities with whom grievances may be filed, such as, the State Survey Agency and State Long-Term Care Ombudsman program or protection and advocacy system was accurate. This failure had the potential for residents and/or their representatives to be unaware of who to voice their care concerns/complaints to. Findings include: The facility lobby was observed on 7/25/23, beginning at 9:07 AM. During the observation, a posted form titled KNOW YOUR RIGHTS was reviewed. The form included the following inaccurate information: - The form included the address of the State Agency as, 3232 Elder Street, however, the correct address is, 450 W State Street. - The form included the telephone number of the Area Ombudsman as, 1-844-689-7562, however, the correct telephone number is, 1-877-471-2777. - The form included the telephone number of Adult Protection as, 1-844-689-7562, however, the correct telephone number is, 1-877-471-2777. The facility…
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 · F2023-07-27 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — widespreadEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, policy review, nursing manual review, competency review, CDC infection control guidelines review, medical record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure nursing staff had competencies and skill sets to assure resident safety. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #281) whose PICC line dressing change was observed and whose record was reviewed. This had the potential for increased risk of infection and mechanical failure for all facility residents with PICC lines. Findings include: The CDC Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infections, 2011 state, Summary of Recommendations .Education, Training, and Staffing .1. Educate healthcare personnel regarding the indications for intravascular catheter use, proper procedures for the .maintenance of intravascular catheters, and appropriate infection control measures to prevent intravascular catheter-related infections .2. Periodically assess knowledge of and adherence to guidelines…
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 · E2023-07-27 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that residents' advance directives were obtained and this information was documented in their record. This was true for 2 of 12 residents (#128, and #177) whose advance directives were reviewed. This deficient practice created the potential for harm or adverse outcome if the resident's wishes were not followed or documented regarding their advance care planning. Findings include: As defined in the State Operations Manual (SOM), Appendix PP, an advance directive is a written instruction, such as a living will or durable power of attorney for health care, relating to the provision of health care when the individual is incapacitated. An Idaho Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (POST) is a form designed to improve patient care by creating a portable medical order form that records patients' treatment wishes so that emergency personnel know what treatments the patient wants in the event of a medical…
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 · D2023-07-27 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure baseline care plans were individualized for 3 of 12 residents (#131, #179, and #188) whose baseline care plans were reviewed. This failure created the potential for resident specific needs to go unrecognized due to lack of information for caregivers. Findings include: Facility policy titled Baseline Care Plans, version A1012, stated the Interim Care Plan is developed during the admission process to direct patient care prior to the development of the Comprehensive Care Plan. The Interim Care Plan is developed from a nursing assessment of the patient's needs, strengths, and weaknesses. The Interim Care Plan is written to include care to be given, goals to be accomplished, and actions necessary to attain the goals. This policy was not followed. 1. Resident #131 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including depression and metabolic encephalopathy (a chemical imbalance that effects…
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 before2023-07-27 · 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 policy review, record review, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to provide a comprehensive, person centered care plan. This was true for 1 of 12 Residents (Resident #6) whose comprehensive care plan was reviewed. This failure created the potential for the resident to receive inappropriate care. Findings include: The facility's policy Comprehensive Care Plan, version A1021, stated the facility will develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan. It stated an individualized care plan should be developed with the input from the patient and/or representative. The policy stated there should be individual-specific interventions and parameters for monitoring progress. This policy was not followed. Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including anxiety and depression. Resident #6's MAR, dated July 2023, documented orders for the following: - Buspirone 7.5 mg (an antianxiety medication),. - Duloxetine 60 mg (an antidepressant medication). Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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 ADVANCED HEALTH CARE — 26 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 | 4.8 | -1.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 4.2 | -2.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 4.1 | -1.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 25 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.8★, per CMS)
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NEW AHC HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/01/2021 |
| THE GAIL MILLER GST TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 72% | since 01/01/2024 |
| THE BRYAN MILLER UTAH DYNASTY TRUST DATED APRIL 22, 2014 | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| THE G&H MILLER UTAH TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 26, 2019 | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| OXNAM, NATHAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| FRASURE, JOSEPH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/11/2025 |
| LHMSH LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| WILLIAMS, RYAN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/11/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 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 $316K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in ID
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Idaho Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 135130. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-18, 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.