Middletown Nursing And Rehabilitation Center
131 S 10th St, Middletown, IN 47356 · For profit - Corporation · 45 certified beds · (765) 354-2223 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (26% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 40.7% | 11.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.1% | 5.5% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 0.0% | 1.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.2% | 25.2% | 6.5% | better 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 | 9.8% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 24.3% | 23.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.7% | 3.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.1% | 23.3% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.0% | 13.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 5.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | 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.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 45 beds and averages 16.7 residents a day — about 37% occupied, or roughly 28 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 4.01 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.98 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.18 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 3.89 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.06 on weekdays — 4% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.07 to 0.74 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 26% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-03 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's rights were honored related to being spoken to in a rude manner and being called a derogatory term in the presence of other staff members in a manner that was loud enough to be heard by others for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for Resident Rights. (Resident C) Findings include:In a interview with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 4 on 2-2-26 at 3:25 p.m., she recalled a conversation with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 3 on an unspecified date around supper time. LPN 3 had told her that Resident C had requested LPN 3 to pour her a cup of water from the pitcher in the resident's room. CNA 4 indicated LPN 3 told her she responded to Resident C that she had two hands and she could do it herself. She added Resident C was no longer as strong as she used to be. It struck me at the time that what she said was really rude; not sure I would call it abuse, but definitely rude. CNA 4 indicated on/around the same date as this verbal interaction, she witnessed LPN 3 refer to Resident C as fat. This occurred during the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-11-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, and distribute foods under safe sanitary conditions regarding the removal of dented cans of food and the cleaning of the stove hood. This deficiency had the potential to impact 14 of 14 residents residing in the facility.Findings include:During a kitchen observation, on 11/19/25 at 9:42 a.m., accompanied by the Dietary Manager, the following was observed:In the facility's dry storage area, each of five cans of Mandarin oranges were severely dented on the top seal of the cans. The cans had an intake date of 11/4/25. A can of butterscotch pudding was dented on the top seal with an intake date of 10/7/25. A can of sliced apples was dented on the top seal with an intake date of 3/25/25. A can of cream of mushroom soup had a dented top seal.The stove hood had a dish rag placed between the stove hood and the fire sprinkler pipe. The rag was covered in dark brown and black colored grease. The stove hood was marked as last serviced May 2025.The Dietary Manager indicated, at the time of observation, that staff…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-11-24 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide residents with dignified dining for 3 of 8 people reviewed for dining. (Residents 3, 4, and 11).Findings include:During a breakfast observation, on 11/20/25 at 8:25 a.m., the following was observed:CNA 7 was standing to the right side of Resident 3 while assisting her with eating. After offering Resident 3 a bite of food, CNA 7 walked over to Resident 4 and offered him a bite of food while standing on Resident 4's left side. CNA 7 walked back and forth between Resident 3 and 4 while offering the residents bites of food. CNA 7 did not sit down any time during the continuous meal service observation.CNA 6 walked over and stood to the right side of Resident 11 who was sitting at the table. CNA 6 offered Resident 11 a bite of oatmeal while she continued to stand next to Resident 11. After Resident 11 took a bite of oatmeal, CNA 6 then proceeded to walk around the dining room cueing semi-dependent residents to eat their meal.Resident 3's clinical record was reviewed on 11/20/25 at 1:33 p.m. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's…
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 · D2025-11-24 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that residents prescribed antipsychotic medications received appropriate gradual dose reduction (GDR) attempts and failed to provide documented clinical justification for the continued use of the antipsychotic medications for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident 3 and Resident 9) Findings include: 1. During an observation, on 11/19/25 at 3:32 p.m., Resident 3 quietly lay in bed with her eyes closed. During an observation, on 11/20/25 at 8:33 a.m., Resident 3 sat quietly in a Broda (high-backed wheeled reclining) chair in the dining room as she was assisted with eating. During an observation, on 11/20/25 at 12:02 p.m., Resident 3 sat quietly in a Broda chair in the dining room at a table with other residents. During an observation, on 11/21/25 at 11:59 a.m., Resident 3 sat quietly in her Broda chair as CNA 10 propelled her to the dining room. During an observation, on 11/24/25 at 10:20 p.m., Resident 3…
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 · D2025-11-24 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were offered up to date information on current vaccinations available for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations. (Resident 4 and Resident 6) Findings include:1. Resident 4's clinical record was reviewed on 11/21/25 at 10:05 a.m. Diagnoses included type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, dyspnea, unspecified, presence of coronary angioplasty implant and graft, and chronic kidney disease, stage 4. Resident 4 received the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV) 23 on 11/30/2007 and the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) 13 on 9/14/15. The clinical record lacked offering for consent or declination for the PCV 20 or the PCV 21. 2. Resident 6's clinical record was reviewed on 11/21/25 at 10:31 a.m. Diagnoses included chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure, presence of coronary angioplasty implant and graft, and atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris. Resident 6 received the PCV 13 on 6/24/15 and the PPSV 23 on 11/27/19. The clinical record lacked…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-11-26 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 maintain the stove hood in a cleanly manner. This had the potential to affect 12 of 12 residents in the facility. Findings include: A tour of the kitchen was conducted with the Dietary Manager (DM) on 11/22/24 at 12:00 p.m. During the tour, an observation of the stove hood was made. There were several intricate looking cobwebs strung between the gaps in the vent covers on the left side of the hood. The cobwebs were brown in color. There was fuzzy debris built up on the right side of the hood. These areas were directly above the stove. An interview was conducted with Dietary Aide 5 during observation of the stove hood. She indicated a separate company was responsible for cleaning the stove hood, and it had been a couple of months since they came. On 11/22/24 at 12:56 p.m., an interview was conducted with the DM, who provided the, 3/4/24, service report from the company who cleaned the facility's stove hood. The service report indicated the exhaust hood was cleaned on 3/4/24. The DM indicated the Maintenance…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the use of enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for EBP (Resident 3, Resident 11, and Resident 2), and failed to ensure a feeding tube piston syringe was dated for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for enteral feeding management (Resident 11). 1. The clinical record for Resident 3 was reviewed on 11/25/2024 at 11:30 a.m. The medical diagnoses included chronic kidney disease. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 11/13/2024, indicated Resident 3 had an indwelling urinary catheter. A physician order, dated 5/16/2024, indicated Resident 3 utilized an indwelling urinary catheter. A urinary care plan, last revised 11/15/2024, indicated Resident 3 utilized an indwelling urinary catheter. The care plan did not indicate the use of EBP. During an interview on 11/22/2024 at 12:29 p.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2 indicated she did not know what EBP was. When she provided care to residents with indwelling medical devices, such as catheters and feeding tubes, she only utilized…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-09-22 · tag F0851 — widespreadElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
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 required nursing staffing data to the payroll based journal (PBJ) for April 1-June 30, 2023, for 1 of 1 Quarter reviewed on Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reporting (CASPER). Findings include: A PBJ Staffing Data Report, dated 9/12/2023, indicated it encapsulated data from April 1-June 30, 2023, and was triggered for failure to submit data for the quarter. A Staff Activity Report, dated for 9/18/2023, indicated that no staffing hours were reported between April 1-June 30, 2023. An interview with the Business Office Manager on 9/18/2023 at 1:30 p.m., indicated that she reported the PBJ information quarterly by manually entering the data into the system. An interview with the Business Office Manager on 9/18/2023 at 2:30 p.m., indicated that did not have validation report and confirmed that no hours had been reported for April 1-June 2023 per the Staff Activity Report for that timeframe. A policy entitled, Staffing, was provided by the Business Office Manager on 9/19/2023 at 2:22 p.m. The policy 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-22 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop or update care plans for the use of Prolia, new skin impairments, a bolster mattress and antidepressant for Resident 9. This affected 3 of 11 residents reviewed for care plan development. (Residents 2, 4, and 9) Findings include: 1. Resident 2's record was reviewed on 9/21/23 at 11:33 a.m. The record indicated Resident 2 had diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, osteoporosis (weakened bones). Current physician's orders included, but were not limited to, Prolia, 60 milligrams, given under the skin one time a day, every 180 days for osteoporosis, with a start date of 6/23/2023. No care plan could be found for the medication nor the diagnosis. On 9/22/23 at 11:28 a.m., the Director of Nurses indicated they do not have a care plan for the use of Prolia to treat osteoporosis. 2. The clinical record for Resident 4 was reviewed on 9/19/2023 at 11:10 a.m. The medical diagnoses included diabetes and kidney disease. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated for 6/8/2023, indicated that Resident 4 was…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MOORE HEALTHCARE ENTERPRISES INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 06/01/2013 |
| MOORE, KIMBERLY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 06/01/2013 |
| CASE, JANET | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 06/01/2013 |
| MOORE, JERROD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/20/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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.
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 155486. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-24, 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.