Twin City Health Care
627 E North H Street, Gas City, IN 46933 · Government - County · 75 certified beds · (765) 674-8516 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited Aug 2023
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- about 23% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 15.2% | 11.0% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.4% | 5.5% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.8% | 1.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 39.0% | 25.2% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.1% | 3.9% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 19.8% | 11.9% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.7% | 23.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.9% | 3.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 10.8% | 23.3% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.5% | 13.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.2% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 79.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 10.3% | 22.2% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.3% | 10.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.19 | 1.61 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.15 | 1.44 | 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.
Met the expected recovery: 62.1% 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 29 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 0.52 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 83% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.7%CMS range 7.3–15.5 | 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 | 62.1% | 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 | 51.7% | 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 | 55.2% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.31 | 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 75 beds and averages 38.2 residents a day — about 51% occupied, or roughly 37 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.57 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.52 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.13 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.28 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.68 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.54 to 0.46 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-14 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents or their representatives were provided with bed hold policies prior to hospitalization for 3 of 4 residents reviewed for hospitalization. (Residents 11, 19, and 25) Finding includes:1.Resident 11's clinical record was reviewed on 8/12/25 at 8:31 a.m. Diagnoses included unspecified dementia, schizophrenia, and delusional disorder.A quarterly, Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 5/1/25, indicated the resident interview was unable to be completed.The clinical record lacked information regarding who received the bed hold policy when the resident was transferred to the hospital on 6/22/25.2.Resident 19's clinical record was reviewed on 8/12/25 at 8:39 a.m.Diagnoses included type two diabetes, chronic kidney disease stage three, and depression.An admission MDS assessment, dated 7/2/25, indicated the resident was cognitively intact.A progress note, dated 8/5/25 at 3:45 p.m., indicated the resident was transferred to the hospital for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-14 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to appropriately date opened insulin pens for 2 of 4 medication carts observed for medication storage. (A Unit cart and C Unit cart) This had the potential to affect 6 of 6 residents who received insulin from A Unit and C Unit carts.Findings include:During a medication storage observation of the A Unit cart, accompanied by QMA 3, on [DATE] at 3:48 p.m., the following was observed: one Basaglar (insulin) 3 milliliters (ml) Kwikpen 100 units per ml, with the seal broken and the pen undated, with approximately 150 units used and one Basaglar 3 ml KwikPen 100 units per ml, with the seal broken and the pen undated, with approximately 75 units used.During a medication storage observation of the C Unit cart, accompanied by QMA 3, on [DATE] at 4:06 p.m., the following was observed: one Lantus (insulin) 3 milliliters (ml) KwikPen 100 units per ml, with the seal broken and then pen undated, with approximately 200 units used.During an interview on [DATE] at 4:11 p.m.,…
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 · E2024-09-17 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to properly prevent and/or contain COVID-19 by not wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) in areas requiring transmission-based precautions (TBP) during random observations on the 100 and 200 halls. Findings include: During a random observation, on 9/11/24 at 11:29 a.m., Housekeeper 3 was seen entering and exiting room [ROOM NUMBER] while wearing gloves and a surgical mask. Signage on the door indicated the residents were in TBP and a gown, gloves, face shield and mask were required before entering the residents' room. During an interview, at the time of observation, Housekeeper 3 indicated she didn't need to wear a face shield, as she wore glasses. She only needed to wear gloves and a surgical mask. During a random observation, on 9/12/24 at 2:08 p.m., Housekeeper 3 entered a positive COVID-19 resident's room while wearing a gown and gloves. Signage on the door indicated the resident was on TBP and everyone must wear 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 before2024-09-17 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications given by gastrostomy tube (G-tube) were administered according to physician's orders and facility policy for 1 of 7 residents observed for medication administration, resulting in an 8.89 % medication error rate. (Resident 31) Finding includes: During an observation, on 9/13/24 at 10:19 a.m., LPN 4 removed the stopper from Resident 31's G-tube, flushed the G-tube with 30 ml (milliliters) of water, and administered multiple medications one at a time via G-tube. The medications included escitalopram (antidepressant) 20 mg tablet crushed mixed with 20 ml water, multivitamin crushed mixed with 20 ml water, linezolid (antibiotic) 600 mg crushed and mixed with 20 ml water, and docusate sodium (50 mg/5 ml) 10 ml. Auscultation of an air bolus and a check for residual stomach contents was not performed prior to the medication administration. During an interview, immediately following the medication administration, LPN 4 indicated the resident took all medications via G-tube. Placement for the G-tube…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-09-25 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication (insulin) was administered according to professional standards for 5 of 41 residents (Residents 8, 9, 22, 11, and 19), resulting in a medication administration error rate of 12.2%. Findings include: On 9/22/23 at 6:45 am, during a medication administration observation with the DON, she administered 2 units of insulin aspart to Resident 8. She did not prime the pen needle before administration, and held the pen in the resident's left upper arm for less than 3 seconds before withdrawing the needle. During an interview, on 9/22/23 at 6:50 a.m., the DON indicated it was her practice to hold the needle in the injection site for 2 to 3 seconds. On 9/22/23 at 6:53 a.m., the DON administered 30 units of insulin detemir to Resident 9. She did not prime the needle before administration, and held the needle in place for less than 2 seconds. On 9/22/23 at 7:00 a.m., the DON administered 14 units of insulin lispro to Resident 22. She did not prime the needle before administration, and immediately…
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 · D2023-09-25 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's code status was correctly listed and readily available in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) for 1 of 16 residents reviewed for advance directives (Resident 83). Finding includes: Resident 83's record was reviewed on [DATE] at 3:49 p.m. Diagnoses included left and right femur fractures, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, abnormal electrocardiogram, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, and chronic atrial fibrillation. Her physician's orders included code status DNR (do not resuscitate) initiated on [DATE]. A Code Status/Advance Directives form indicated the resident did not want to have CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) performed as a life-saving measure. The form, signed by the resident on [DATE], was in the paper chart. The face sheet in the EMR lacked her code status. The Continuity of Care record in the EMR indicated, under the Advance Directives section, No Advance Directives are on file for this 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-25 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the State Agency for 1 of 1 resident-to-resident altercations reviewed for abuse (Resident 9 and 26). Finding includes: During an interview, on 9/20/23 at 9:35 a.m., Resident 9 indicated another resident had hit her several months ago. She no longer went near the other resident because of the altercation. Resident 9's clinical record was reviewed on 9/20/23 at 3:40 p.m. Her diagnoses included paranoid schizophrenia, bipolar disease, major depressive disorder, recurrent, anxiety disorder, and pseudobulbar affect. An 8/8/23 quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment indicated she was cognitively intact and had exhibited no behaviors during the assessment period. She utilized a walker and a wheelchair for mobility and was independent with locomotion off and on the nursing unit. A care plan for false allegations against staff, initiated 11/15/22 and last revised on 8/23/23, indicated the resident had a history of making false allegations against staff regarding care or lack of care, abuse, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-15 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure narcotic medication was free from diversion for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for misappropriation of resident property (Resident B). Findings include: Resident B's clinical record was reviewed on 8/14/23 at 2:47 p.m. Diagnoses included encounter for palliative care, anxiety disorder, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dependence on supplemental oxygen, and chronic pulmonary edema. His current medications included morphine concentrate 0.25 ml (milliliter) every two hours as needed for shortness of breath or pain. Review of a Consolidated Delivery Sheet indicated, on 9/23/22 at 11:15 p.m., the pharmacy delivered a 30 ml bottle of morphine sulfate 100 mg/5 ml and it was signed for by a nurse at the facility. Review of the resident's MARs (Medication Administration Records) indicated the following: In September 2022, he was not administered morphine for the entire month. In October 2022, he was administered morphine 0.25 ml on 10/31/22. In November 2022, he was not administered morphine for the entire month. 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 before2023-08-15 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to report misappropriation of a resident's property related to missing morphine to law enforcement and to the Indiana Department of Health (IDOH) for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for misappropriation of property (Resident B). Findings include: During an interview with the Administrator, on 8/14/23 at 1:03 p.m., she indicated she received a call, not an allegation, from QMA 4 about Resident B's bottle of morphine, there was thought to be two bottles of morphine but only one was in the narcotic drawer. It was investigated, they looked for the bottle and couldn't see where he had two bottles. Education was provided to the staff and she came up with a form to count cards and bottles. During an interview with QMA 4, on 8/14/23 at 2:09 p.m., she thought there were two bottles of morphine but she wasn't 100% sure, she reported it to management. She did a narcotic count in the morning with RN 8, there was only one bottle but thought there had been two bottles, when she counted with LPN 15, in the evening, LPN 15 also thought there had…
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.
- No harm found · C2023-09-25 · tag F0577 — widespreadAllow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the results report from the last annual Indiana Department of Health (IDOH) survey were posted at an accessible height and in a readily accessible location for 2 of 2 residents interviewed in a group setting (Residents 4 and 5). This deficient practice had the potential to impact 34 of 34 residents/or representatives for those residents who resided in the facility. Findings include: During an observation on 9/20/23 at 9:28 a.m., a sign was posted in the lobby which indicated the last annual IDOH survey report was posted in the activity room. During an observation on 9/20/23 at 9:29 a.m., a sign identifying the activity room could not be located. Following directions received, the activity area was located on the B Hall. During an observation on 9/20/23 at 9:33 a.m., the last annual IDOH survey report was observed in a wall mounted box hanging approximately 5 feet from the ground, inside the activity room. The box had no labeling to indicate the binder was the survey report. By standing upright, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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 HCF MANAGEMENT INDIANA — 6 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 5 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.5★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WITHAM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 11/01/2011 |
| BAYSTON, BRETT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| BRAND, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2015 |
| CASTETTER, ANDREA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| HAWKINS, CLAUDE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/01/2013 |
| HORNBECKER, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| REAGAN, JULIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 09/25/2024 |
| BRAVERMAN, KELLY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2021 |
| SELLERS, DANIEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/20/2024 |
| MAGNOLIA HEALTH MANAGEMENT VII | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/01/2011 |
| OFFERLE, ANDREW | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/29/2025 |
| REED, STUART | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/01/2011 |
| SANDERS, JESSICA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/29/2025 |
| REED, MICHAEL | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/13/2025 |
| MAGNOLIA HEALTH SYSTEMS 59, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/13/2025 |
| MAGNOLIA HEALTH SYSTEMS INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2011 |
| SABRA HEALTH CARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2011 |
| WARD, JONATHAN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2011 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 18 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.
About 79% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 23% 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. 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 IN
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 Indiana 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 155232. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-14, 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.