Fowler Residential Care
401 E 6th, Fowler, KS 67844 · Government - Hospital district · 20 certified beds · (620) 646-5215 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)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $8,021 in federal fines (most recent 2024-04-30)
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) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 16.4% | 17.9% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.1% | 4.9% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.3% | 1.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.5% | 2.9% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.5% | 6.5% | 6.5% | better |
| 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 | 1.5% | 4.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.2% | 16.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.5% | 23.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 9.1% | 4.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.6% | 22.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.6% | 18.1% | 17.1% | typical |
‡ 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 20 beds and averages 15.6 residents a day — about 78% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.50 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.91 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.18 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.39 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.94 on weekdays — 26% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 2.02 to 1.63 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 37% 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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-04-30 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY The facility reported a census of 16 residents with two residents identified and reviewed for elopement. Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent one cognitively impaired Resident (R) 1, who was identified with an elopement risk and had a known history of elopement, from leaving the facility unsupervised and without staff knowledge. The facility staff last saw R1 on 04/21/24 sometime between 10:00 PM and 11:00 PM. On 04/22/24 at around 03:00 AM, facility staff were unable to locate R1. After searching and notifying Administrative Staff, Law Enforcement, and R1's family, the facility learned R1 was with his sibling in another state, over five hours away. R1 stated he used a hammer to remove the window braces, crawled out of the window, and walked over 100 feet to the back gate area, where a family member picked him up and drove him out of state. The lack of facility supervision for a resident who displayed verbal expressions of wanting to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-02-26 · 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
The facility reported a census of 16 residents. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food to prevent possible food-borne illness among the facility's residents. Findings included: On 02/24/25 at 10:58 AM, during an initial tour of the central kitchen and refrigerator storage areas with Dietary Staff BB, the following areas of concern were identified: One unsealed bag of broccoli, and a container of ranch dressing, in the refrigerator. One sealed bag of onion rings, three bags of hamburger buns, and a bag of hotdog buns without a date or label in the freezer. There was one cutting board with uncleanable surfaces that were discolored along with deep slices that were visible. On 02/24/25 at 11:15 AM, an interview with Dietary Manager BB revealed she expected staff to date opened food items. Dietary Manager BB stated that the above concerns identified with kitchen and freezer storage, which included undated and unsealed items, were unacceptable. The facility's policy on Dietary Purchase, Receipt, and Storage, dated…
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 · E2025-02-26 · tag F0582 — patternGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility reported a census of 16 residents. The sample included eight residents. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the correct and complete Beneficiary Protection Notification forms were issued to two of three residents reviewed, Resident (R) 3 and R11. Findings included: - On 02/26/25 review of the Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage Form CMS-10055 (SNF ABN- the waiver issued by providers when the services might not be covered) and the Notification of Medicare Non-Coverage Form 10123 (NOMNC- the form used to notify Medicare A participants of their rights to appeal and the last covered date of service) for three residents. R3 and R11 lacked the SNF ABN form, which is a requirement when discharging from skilled services, with days remaining, and remaining in the facility. The Beneficiary Notice documented R3's skilled discharge date as 05/22/24 and would remain in the facility. R11's skilled discharge date as 05/22/24 and would remain in the facility. R3's Skilled Nursing Beneficiary Protection Notification Review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-05-10 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — patternMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility census totaled 14 residents with seven residents residing on hall 100, and one bath house used to bathe those seven residents on that hall. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure call light accessibility to these seven residents when they received showers in this one bath house. The shower area lacked a cord on the call light located next to the shower making it inaccessible to residents receiving showers and staff providing showers, in case of emergency. Findings include: - Tour of the facility on 05/09/23 at 07:30 AM, revealed a shower room on the hall 100. While checking the room there was a call light box on the wall next to the shower with no pull cord attached for residents or staff to use in case of an emergency. Interview on 05/09/23 at 08:00 AM, Maintenance staff U reported he was aware of the cord being gone and was told about it several days ago, but just had not gotten around to replacing it yet. On 05/10/23 at 12:33 PM administrative staff A reported she was surprised about the cord. She thought she had taken care…
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 before2023-05-10 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility reported a census of 14 residents and identified 1 with cognitive impairment and self-mobile. Based on interview, observation and record review the facility failed to ensure a safe environment for the one resident with the failure to secure hazardous chemicals in the facility's beauty shop. Findings include: - On 05/09/23 at 07:30 AM, observation of the facility beauty shop revealed two containers of hair spray unsecured. The hair spray bottles revealed warning labels to keep out of reach of children. On 05/09/23 at 08:00 AM, with notification to Maintenance Staff U of the unlocked chemicals, revealed the hair spray should be secured in a locked cabinet. On 05/10/23 at 12:57 PM, Licensed Nurse G reported that all chemicals in the building needed to be locked inside a cabinet. On 05/10/23 at 12:33 PM, Administrative Nurse D reported all chemicals should be locked inside a cabinet when not in use. The facility's Control of Hazardous Chemicals policy, dated 05/12/21 documented that all substances with warning labels, including but not limited to keep out of reach of…
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 · E2021-08-30 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — patternEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY The facility reported a census of 15 residents, with eight residents included in the sample, and five reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow-up on the recommendations made by the pharmacist for Resident (R)1, R4, R7 and R14 medications. Findings included: - The August 2021 Physician Order Summary revealed R1 with the following diagnoses: anxiety disorder (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty and irrational fear), pain, irritability and anger, and major depressive disorder (abnormal emotional state characterized by exaggerated feelings of sadness, worthlessness, emptiness and hopelessness.) The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed R1 was rarely or never understood, a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score could not be completed, and noted R1 as moderately impaired for cognitive skills for daily decision-making. R1 received an antipsychotic, antianxiety, and an antidepressant…
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 · E2021-08-30 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY The facility had a census of 15 residents with eight residents in the sample and five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure four of five residents did not receive unnecessary medications when the facility failed to ensure the physician responded to a Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR) recommendation to be completed on psychotropic medications (any medication capable of affecting the mind, emotions, and behavior) for Residents (R)1, R4, R7 and R14. Findings included: - Review of the August 2021 Physician Order Summary revealed R1 had the following diagnoses: anxiety disorder (mental or emotional reaction characterized by apprehension, uncertainty and irrational fear), pain, irritability and anger, and major depressive disorder (abnormal emotional state characterized by exaggerated feelings of sadness, worthlessness, emptiness and hopelessness.) The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed R1 was rarely or never…
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 · D2021-08-30 · 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
The facility census totaled 15 residents with eight included in the sample. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to remove expired medications from the refrigerator to include two single dose vaccination injections: one Influenza vaccine (flu vaccine) with an expiration date 06/30/21 and one single dose injection Pneumococcal-13 (pneumonia vaccine) with an expiration date 07/21. Findings included: - Observation of the Medication Room on 08/25/21 at 11:31 AM revealed the refrigerator contained two expired injectable vaccinations. A single dose of Influenza vaccine with the expiration date of 06/30/21 and a single dose of Pneumococcal-13 vaccine with the expiration date of 07/21 Interview with Licensed Nurse (LN) E on 08/30/21 at 09:28 AM revealed the medication room should be check weekly for expired medication by the night nurse. Interview with Administrative Nurse D on 08/30/21 at 10:52 AM revealed she expected the nursing staff to remove medications when expired. The facility policy Medication Labeling and Storage dated 09/18/19 lacked information…
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 · C2021-08-30 · tag F0882 — widespreadDesignate a qualified infection preventionist to be responsible for the infection prevent and control program in the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
The facility had a census of 15 residents with eight residents in the sample. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the infection preventionist completed specialized training in infection control and prevention. This had the potential of affecting all residents in the facility. Findings included: - An Entrance Conference interview completed on 08/24/21 at 08:50 AM identified Administrative Nurse B as the Infection Control Preventionist (ICP) for the facility. Review of information and documentation provided by the facility on 08/25/21 revealed the facility lacked evidence of specialized training in infection prevention and control completed by Administrative Nurse B. On 08/25/21 at 04:10 PM, Administrative Nurse B stated she had been the infection preventionist for about one and a half years but had not completed any specialized training for the position. Interview on 08/30/21 at 09:26 AM with Administrative Staff A revealed Administrative Nurse B had been in her position for about one and a half years and stated she hoped Administrative Nurse B would…
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
$8,021 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $8,021 — penalty dated 2024-04-30
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-05-17 for 6 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| KNOTT, CHERYL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/09/2014 |
| MCDOWELL, KAREN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/16/2025 |
| MILFORD, KEVIN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/09/2014 |
| MILFORD, PAM | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/16/2025 |
| FOWLER HOSPITAL DISTRICT | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/07/2012 |
| BENTON, GILBERT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/17/2014 |
| NORMAN, GREGG | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/16/2025 |
| SCHOWENGERDT, ANDREW | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/07/2022 |
| WHITNEY, BARBARA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2015 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 24 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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.
What families pay in KS
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 Kansas 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 175526. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-02-26, 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.