No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Greenwood Health And Living Community

937 Fry Rd, Greenwood, IN 46142 · For profit - Corporation · 111 certified beds · (317) 881-3535 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (317) 881-3535 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0602) — cited May 2025
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited May 2025
  • its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
  • nursing-staff turnover (63%) runs well above the national median (45%)
  • about 39% 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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 1 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
890 Loews Blvd · (317) 882-5778 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1550 E County Line Rd · (317) 534-6258 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
1105 Coventry Ct
Park
1251 US-31 N · (317) 887-6460 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
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.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased3.3%11.0%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight10.7%5.5%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.4%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.5%1.1%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms9.8%25.2%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury1.5%3.9%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened7.9%11.9%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication27.7%23.5%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine92.5%95.4%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers7.0%3.6%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control19.7%23.3%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table16.8%13.6%17.1%typical
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine69.9%79.0%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission22.2%22.2%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit7.9%10.8%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.301.611.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.191.441.80better

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.

52.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 106 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

52.5%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.1%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
71.2%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.30U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.12hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.11hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.07hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 71.2% 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 59 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 0.30 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 48% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF52.5%CMS range 42.3–62.251.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.1%CMS range 7.8–14.310.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge71.2%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge49.1%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge47.5%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified98.7%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay1.3%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.6%CMS range 3.7–11.57.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.081.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.46
RN hours/ resident / day
0.68
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.78
Aide hours/ resident / day
2.92
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.29
RN hoursweekends
62.8%
Total nursing turnover
70.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 111 beds and averages 96.8 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 14 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.92 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.46 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.78 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.52 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.08 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.52 to 0.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 63% 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

2
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-04-16)
6
at the previous standard inspection (2025-05-23)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · F2026-04-16 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure foods were served in a sanitary and safe manner for 3 of 3 kitchen observations. Staff hair was not covered while in the kitchen food preparation area and while serving the meal. (Dietary Aide 2 and Dietary Aide 3) Finding includes:1. During the initial kitchen observation with [NAME] 4 on 4/12/26 from 9:10 a.m. to 9:20 a.m., the following was observed: - Dietary Aide 2 was observed walking through the kitchen area. Dietary Aide 2 was observed to have facial hair, above and below the lip area and along the jaw line, that was approximately one fourth inch in length. The facial hair was observed to not be covered.- Dietary Aide 3 was observed walking through the kitchen area. Dietary Aide 3 was observed to have facial hair above the lip area that was approximately one fourth inch in length. The facial hair was observed to not be covered.2. During a follow-up kitchen observation on 4/12/26 from 11:58 a.m. to 12:10 p.m., the following was observed:- Dietary Aide 2 was observed walking through the kitchen…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-16 · tag F0554 — isolated
    Allow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
    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 self- administration medication assessment was completed for residents with medications left at bedside for 1 of 32 residents rooms observed. (Resident 30) Finding includes: During initial tour on 4/12/26 at 9:22 a.m., observed Resident 30's room. Resident 30 was sitting up in the wheelchair. Resident 30 had an overbed table. A handheld Albuterol (a medication used to treat asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder symptoms) inhaler 90 mcg (micrograms). No staff were observed to be in the room or in hallway. On 4/13/26 at 8:31 a.m., Resident 30 sitting up in the wheelchair and indicated that his Albuterol inhaler was in his top drawer of his nightstand. Inside the drawer the Albuterol inhaler was observed. On 4/13/26 at 8:40 a.m., Resident 30's clinical record was reviewed. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 3/2/26, indicated Resident 30 had no cognitive impairment. Resident 30's clinical record lacked a self-medication administration assessment. During an interview on…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-05-23 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — pattern
    Protect 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect the resident's rights to be free from misappropriation of property for 5 of 5 residents reviewed for misappropriation of property. Narcotic medications were missing. (Resident B, Resident C, Resident D, Resident E, Resident F) Findings include: 1. On 5/20/25 at 12:02 p.m., Resident B's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, hypertensive chronic kidney disease and osteomyelitis of vertebra (inflammation of bone caused by infection of a spinal disc). The Annual MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 4/7/25, indicated Resident B was cognitively intact. The Physician's Orders included, but were not limited to: - Hydrocodone-acetaminophen (narcotic pain medication) 5-325 mg (milligrams), every six hours a day for pain, initiated 3/27/24. 2. On 5/20/25 at 12:05 p.m., Resident C's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, osteomyelitis, pneumonia, and acute respiratory…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-05-23 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
    Develop 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

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop care plans for 5 of 19 residents reviewed. Care plans were not developed for skin conditions, use of an electric wheelchair, and non-compliance. (Resident F, Resident 28, Resident 73, Resident 56, Resident 74) Finding includes: 1. On 5/20/25 at 8:30 a.m., observed Resident F in the hallway. Resident F was observed sitting in his manual wheelchair in the hall way. Resident F was wearing short pants. Multiple dried scabs were noted on his bilateral lower extremities. An open area was observed on his left knee and no dressing was observed. During an interview on 5/20/25 at 9:30 a.m., Resident F indicated the facility took his electric wheelchair away from him. On 5/20/25 at 10:00 a.m., Resident F's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, physical debility and muscle weakness. An admission Assessment, dated 4/21/25, indicated Resident F arrived to the facility with a motorized wheelchair. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 4/28/25, indicated…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-05-23 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
    Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of needs for 1 of 19 reviewed for call light access. (Resident 73) Finding includes: On 5/20/25 from 8:35 a.m. to 8:40 a.m., Resident 73 was observed resting in bed while eating breakfast. Resident 73's call light was observed approximately 3 feet to the left of the head of the bed. The call light cord and mechanism were observed hanging from the wall to approximately 3 inches above the floor. The observed call light system was not within reach of the resident. During an interview at that time, Resident 73 indicated he did not know where the call light was located. During an interview on 5/20/25 at 8:43 a.m., Scheduler 7 indicated Resident 73's call light was to be kept within reach of the resident. Resident 73 sometimes would throw his call light around. On 5/22/25 at 8:45 a.m., Resident 73 was observed sitting in his wheelchair that was positioned at the foot end on the left side of the bed. Resident 73 was facing away from the head of the bed. Against the wall and to the…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-05-23 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide care in accordance with the plan of care for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for skin conditions. Physician's orders were not followed for skin treatments. (Resident F) Finding includes: On 5/20/25 at 8:30 a.m., observed Resident F in the hallway. Resident F was observed sitting in his wheelchair in the hall way. Resident F was wearing short pants. Multiple dried scabs were observed on both of his legs. An open area was observed on his left knee. No dressing was observed. On 5/21/25 at 9:00 a.m., observed Resident F in the hallway wearing short pants. Multiple dried scabs were observed on his both of his legs. An open area was observed on his left knee. No dressing was observed. On 5/22/25 at 9:18 a.m., Resident F was observed sitting in the hallway in his wheelchair wearing shorts. Dried red drainage was observed on his left leg. Open area's on both legs and his left knee were observed to be exposed. On 5/23/25 at 9:48 a.m., Resident F's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnosis included, but was not…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-05-23 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolated
    Ensure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
    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 resident's enteral feeding (tube feeding) was signed and dated for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for enteral feeding devices. (Resident 253) Finding includes: On 5/19/25 at 11:45 a.m., Resident 253's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, atherosclerotic heart disease (a build-up of plaque in artery walls) and unspecified dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Physician's Orders indicated Resident 253 had an order for Osmolite 1.2 (a type of enteral tube feeding) to run at 65 mL/hr (milliliters per hour) and H20 (water) at 53 mL/hr bolus (dose) to run continuously on each shift. On 5/19/25 at 12:45 p.m., Resident 253 was observed resting in bed. Next to the bed was an IV pole with an electronic pump device connected to Resident 253. The device was noted to be running at the time of observation. The tube feeding container running into the pump device was labeled as Osmolite 1.2 roughly three fourths full of a tan colored liquid and an unlabeled bag filled with clear…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-05-23 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided a two-step tuberculin skin test upon admission for 1 of 5 resident reviewed for tuberculin skin tests. (Resident 50) Finding includes: On 5/19/25 at 12:45 p.m., Resident 50's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, chronic respiratory failure, chronic pulmonary edema (an abnormal build up of fluid in the lungs), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (a chronic condition causes high blood sugar levels). Resident 50 had an admission date of 3/29/25. Resident 50's TB (Tuberculin) test administration history indicated that resident had a first step TB skin test administered on 3/29/25 and a first step TB skin test administered on 4/30/25. The two skin tests were each read with negative results and they were administered 32 days apart. Both tests were labeled in the system as first step TB skin tests and there was no timely second step associated with either. During an interview on 5/22/25 at 9:00 a.m., the DON (Director of Nursing) indicated that Resident 50's two…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-30 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolated
    Protect 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect the resident's rights to be free from misappropriation of property for 1 of 1 allegation of misappropriation of property. (Resident B) Finding include: On 4/30/25 at 12:02 p.m., Resident B's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, diabetes mellitus, right tibia (shin bone) fracture, cellulitis, and pain in right leg. The annual MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 3/7/25, indicated Resident B was cognitively intact. The Physician Order Report, dated 4/30/25, indicated the following: - Oxycodone-acetaminophen (pain medication) 7.5-325 mg (milligrams), twice a day for pain, initiated 1/13/25. - Oxycodone-acetaminophen 7.5-325 mg, every 4 hours as needed for right leg pain, initiated 1/13/25. Resident B's Controlled Drug Record for Oxycodone-acetaminophen 7.5-325 mg had a tablet signed out on 4/11/25 at 10:00 a.m. by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1. Four tablets remained. During an interview on 4/30/25…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-05-13 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop a person-centered care plan for a resident with a hearing device for 1 of 1 residents reviewed with a hearing device. (Resident 42) Finding includes: On 5/8/24 at 11:03 a.m., Resident 42 was observed resting in bed. During an interview at that time, Resident 42 indicated she was not able to hear or understand what was being said because she was unable to find her amplifier device system (hearing assistance device). On 5/9/24 at 9:24 a.m., Resident 42 was observed resting in bed. Resident 42 was observed putting on a head-set which was attached to an amplifier system. During an interview at that time, Resident 42 indicated she relied on the amplifier device system to be able to hear. On 5/10/24 at 11:15 a.m., Resident 42 was observed resting in bed watching TV. Resident 42 was observed wearing a head-set which was attached to an amplifier device system. On 5/9/24 at 1:06 p.m., Resident 42's clinical record was reviewed. Diagnosis…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-13 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were dated for 1 of 2 medication carts of observed. Insulin pens were not dated with an open date. (200 Medication Hall Cart) Findings include: During a medication storage and labeling review, on 5/9/24 at 9:25 a.m., observed 4 opened Insulin Flex Pens 100 units/ml (milliliter) in 200 Hall Medication Cart. The Flex Pens were not labeled indicating the date the Flex pens were opened. During an interview on 5/10/24 at 9:05 a.m., the Regional Nurse Consultant indicated the insulin pens on the cart should have been dated with an open date. On 5/9/24 at 10:15 a.m., the Director of Nursing provided a policy titled, Insulin Packaging G-24, from Policy and Procedure [NAME], undated, and indicated it was the current policy being used by the facility. A review of the policy indicated .1. When activating a bottle of insulin, remove the bottle from the box, Date the bottle, Retain the bottle for 28 days, then discard. 3.1-25(j)

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-09-20 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
    Develop 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

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement the plan of care for 4 out of 5 residents reviewed for falls. Call lights were not within reach. (Resident B, Resident C, Resident D, Resident E) Finding includes: 1. On 9/19/23 at 9:07 a.m., observed Resident B sitting in his wheelchair, in his room, watching television. Resident B's call light was observed attached to Resident B's pillow, on the bed, approximately 4 feet from Resident B. At that time, Resident B indicated if he needed assistance he would use the call light, but he could not reach the call light. Resident B was not able to propel his wheelchair on his own nor transfer and get to the bathroom without assistance because his leg was amputated. The clinical record for Resident B was reviewed 9/20/23 at 12:37 p.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, acquired absence of right leg below the knee and abnormality of gait and mobility. A Brief Interview for Mental Status, dated 9/19/23, indicated Resident B was mildly cognitively impaired. A care plan, dated 9/18/23 and current…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · C2024-05-13 · tag F0732 — widespread
    Post nurse staffing information every day.
    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 actual hours worked were posted for 3 of 4 days of the survey. Findings include: On 5/8/24 at 11:45 a.m., observed the posted nursing hours, dated 5/8/24, on the wall behind the nurses station. No other posted nursing hours were observed. The posted nursing hours lacked the actual hours worked. On 5/9/24 at 8:20 a.m., observed the posted nursing hours, dated 5/9/24, on the wall behind the nurses station. No other posted nursing hours were observed. The posted nursing hours lacked the actual hours worked. On 5/10/24 at 8:45 a.m., observed the posted nursing hours, dated 5/10/24, on the wall behind the nurses station. No other posted nursing hours were observed. The posted nursing hours lacked the actual hours worked. During an interview on 5/10/24 at 9:00 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated they had posted the actual nursing hours. On 5/10/24 at 9:33 a.m., the DON provided a policy titled Posting Direct Care Daily Staffing Numbers, undated, and indicated it was the current policy being…

    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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · C2024-05-13 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespread
    Dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
    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 top dumpster lids were kept closed when not in use and that the dumpster area was free of rubbish for 2 of 3 observations. Finding includes: 1. During the initial facility tour with the Regional Dietary Consultant, on 5/8/24 from 10:30 a.m. to 10:35 a.m., the dumpster container area was observed. The dumpster area was located approximately 30 yards from the kitchen's rear exit door. The following was observed: - Two dumpster containers were observed. The trash dumpster was located on the right side and had two top lids. One of the two top lids was observed to not be closed. Multiple filled trash bags were visible inside the dumpster container. - Next to the dumpster container were multiple broken-down boxes and one large un-broken down box leaning against the trash dumpster container. - No staff were visible near the dumpster area. During an interview at that time, the Regional Dietary Consultant indicated the dumpster area was to be kept clean, free of debris and the top lids were to be kept…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to CARDON & ASSOCIATES — 19 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 3 of 53.7-0.7 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 53.3-0.3 vs chain
Staffing 1 of 52.5-1.5 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 54.6+0.4 vs chain
The other 18 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.7★, 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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
RIVERVIEW HOSPITALOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 10/01/2017
GERMAN AMERICAN BANKOrganization5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/15/2025
BALLA, MATTHEWIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/23/2022
CATTELL, ZACHARYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/25/2022
FAUTH, KENDRAIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/26/2021
GORMAL, GREGGIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/01/2016
HAUG, AMYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/04/2022
INGRAM, STEPHANIEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/01/2021
LOPOSSA, LYNNIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/17/2023
MACK, MARCIAIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/11/2022
MCCLARNON, DANIELLEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2024
MCCLELLAND, THOMASIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/26/2021
MIHAY, DORIANIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/15/2024
SPENCER, LEAANNIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/18/2018
FRIEND, JAYNAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2021
HYATT, DAVIDIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 03/27/2023
CARDON AND ASSOCIATES INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/15/2025
CARDON MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/25/2025
MOORE OPERATING GROUP INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 05/18/2020
HAFIDH, SAADIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/07/2020
MCINTOSH, ERICIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/31/2021
HEADLEY, KATHYIndividualINDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/09/2025
MOORE, DANIELIndividualINDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/09/2025
MOORE, DAVIDIndividualINDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/09/2025
MOORE, STEPHENIndividualINDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/09/2025
ANKURA CONSULTING GROUP LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 06/15/2022
BRADLEY & ASSOCIATES INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2023
COLE MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2015
FORVIS MAZARS LLPOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2021
GREENWOOD H&L PROPERTY LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 12/31/2002
HEALTHDRIVE PODIATRY GROUP PAOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 03/07/2019
HEART OF CARDON LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 09/06/2007
JEFFREY L MORER OD PCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 03/07/2019
LACY BEYL & COMPANY INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 07/15/2015
LIFESPAN THERAPY LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 10/25/2007
MED-PASS INCORPORATEDOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 09/01/2020
MOBILE AUDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES PCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 03/07/2019
MOSER CONSULTING INCORPORATEDOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2020
PROACTIVE CLINICAL PARTNERSOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2020
RESPIRATORY PARTNERS INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 11/01/2019
THIRD EYE HEALTH INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 02/04/2022
VOX GLOBAL LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 02/28/2019

CMS files one row per role, so the 72 rows in the source record cover these 42 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

22 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.

$12.9M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+3.5%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$4.9M
Related-party expense39% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 72%Medicare 5%Other / private 23%

About 72% 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 $4.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 39% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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

$371per resident / day
operating cost
$11,273per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$384per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Indiana
$8,943/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$10,326/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,639/mo
Assisted living

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 155412. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-16, 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.

What to do next