Owsley County Health Care Center, Inc.
20 County Barn Road, Booneville, KY 41314 · Non profit - Corporation · 91 certified beds · (606) 593-6302 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (28% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 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 improved from 3 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 | 16.1% | 13.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.9% | 6.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.5% | 0.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.3% | 1.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 6.6% | 17.7% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 6.6% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 17.7% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 39.9% | 29.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.6% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.6% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.3% | 19.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.6% | 16.1% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.1% | 1.7% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 81.8% | 83.5% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.7% | 24.2% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 21.5% | 13.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.34 | 1.94 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.20 | 2.14 | 1.80 | worse |
§ 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.
38.8% 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 40 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.36 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 62% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 22% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 38.8%CMS range 24.9–54.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.5%CMS range 8.3–17.0 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 97.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.2%CMS range 3.8–12.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.07 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 91 beds and averages 77.9 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 13 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 4.08 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.17 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.44 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 3.47 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.33 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.41 to 0.58 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 28% 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 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.
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 · D2022-01-07 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to provide written notice to the resident and resident's representative at the time of transfer for hospitalizations that specified the duration of the bed-hold policy for two (2) of five (5) sampled residents (Resident #46 and #37). The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Bed Hold, dated 06/08/2021, revealed the facility would follow regulatory guidance for bed hold procedure. 1. Record review revealed the facility admitted Resident #37 on 09/30/2019, with diagnoses which included Cerebral Infarction, Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis and Aphasia. Review of this resident's Nursing Home to Hospital Transfer documentation, dated 12/23/21, revealed Resident #37 was transferred to an acute care hospital on [DATE]; however, there was no documented evidence in the medical record of a Bed Hold offered to this resident or resident's representative until 12/29/2021 approximately six (6) days after…
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 · D2022-01-07 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
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, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to complete a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for two (2) of three (3) sampled residents. (Resident #43 and Resident #15). Resident #43 was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder on 09/06/2021 and Resident #43 was diagnosed with Moderate Major Depressive Disorder on 08/06/2020; however, the facility failed to ensure a Level II PASARR assessment was completed. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Preadmission Screening and Resident Review, dated 01/2021 revealed the designated facility personnel will be responsible for: Accurately completing and submitting the PASARR Level I screening for all individuals prior to admission; providing (with the Level I screening) a complete history and physical that reflects the individual's current functioning, lists all current medications, and is signed by a physician; providing the completed provisional admission forms (with…
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 · F2019-04-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide 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, record review and review of facility's Policies, it was determined the facility failed to establish an Infection Prevention and Control Program (IPCP) that included an annual review of its IPCP in order to update their program as necessary. The facility was unable to submit documented evidence its IPCP and infection control policies were reviewed annually. The findings include: Review of facility's Policy titled, Antibiotic Stewardship Policy, dated 01/04/18, revealed there was no documented evidence an annual review was performed in January 2019. Review of facility's Policy titled, Procedural Guideline for Isolation Precautions, undated, revealed there was no documented evidence an annual review was performed. Review of facility's Policy titled, Policy for Influenza/Pneumococcal Vaccination of Residents, undated, revealed there was no documented evidence an annual review was performed. Review of facility's procedure titled, Procedure for Isolation: Initiation of Isolation, undated, revealed there was no documented evidence an annual review was performed.…
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 · F2019-04-04 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — widespreadImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review and review of the facility's Policy, it was determined the facility failed to establish an Infection Prevention and Control Program (IPCP) that included an Antibiotic Stewardship Program to include antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor antibiotic use. The facility was unable to submit documented evidence of an Antibiotic Stewardship Program that includes antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor antibiotic use in order to optimize the treatment of infections while reducing the adverse events associated with antibiotic use. The findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Antibiotic Stewardship Policy, dated 01/04/18, revealed the Antibiotic Stewardship Committee would support and promote antibiotic use protocols. Interview with the Infection Control Preventionist, on 04/04/19 at 3:52 PM, revealed the facility did not have antibiotic use protocols in place. She further stated the Antibiotic Stewardship Program was not yet off the ground. The Infection Control Preventionist stated the pharmacist was unable to attend meetings…
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 · D2019-04-04 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Version 3.0 User Manual, it was determined the facility failed to assure the accuracy of Section M of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, for one (1) of twenty-two (22) sampled residents, (Resident #50). Resident #50's MDS Assessment was coded to reflect a pressure ulcer was present on admission; however, during the resident's stay, the pressure ulcer subsequently worsened and the MDS was incorrectly coded as present upon admission. The findings include: Review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Version 3.0 User Manual, dated October 2017, Chapter 3, revealed the intent of Section M: Skin Conditions, was to document the risk, presence, appearance, and change of pressure ulcers. This section also notes other skin ulcers, wounds, or lesions and documents some treatment categories related to skin injury or avoiding injury. It is important to recognize and evaluate each resident's risk factors and to identify and evaluate all areas at risk of constant pressure. Per the RAI Manual, a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-04-04 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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, record review, and review of facility's policies, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the Comprehensive Care Plan is reviewed and revised by an interdisciplinary team composed of individuals who have knowledge of the resident and his/her needs, and that each resident and resident representative, if applicable, is involved in developing the care plan and making decisions about his or her care for two (2) of twenty-two (22) sampled residents (Resident #37 and Resident #46). The facility failed to revise the activity program to meet the needs of Resident #37 and Resident #46. 1. Resident #37's Care Plan and Activity Log revealed the resident watched television, the resident did not have a television and no staff had observed the resident watching television. In addition, at the time of survey, Resident #37 was confined to his/ her room based on his/her roommate's medical condition requiring isolation precautions. Resident #37 enjoyed being in the hallway and was deprived…
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 · D2019-04-04 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
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, record review, and review of facility's Policies, it was determined the facility failed to provide, based on the comprehensive assessment and care plan and the preferences of each resident, an ongoing program to support the residents in their choice of activities, both facility-sponsored group and individual activities and independent activities, designed to meet the interest of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident, encouraging both independence and interaction in the community for two (2) of twenty-two (22) sampled residents (Resident #37 and Resident #46). 1. Resident #37's Care Plan and Activity Log revealed the resident watched television, the resident did not have a television and no staff had observed the resident watching television. In addition, at the time of survey, Resident #37 was confined to his/ her room based on his/her roommate's medical condition requiring isolation precautions. Resident #37 enjoyed being in the hallway…
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 · D2019-04-04 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and review of the facility's Policy, it was determined the facility failed to store and label medications in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable. Observation on 04/03/19 revealed an opened and undated Humalog Insulin multi-dose pen in the East Unit refrigerator and expired Lantaprost eye drops in the East Hall Medication Cart. Observation of the East Medication Cart, on 04/04/19, revealed ten (10) medications were left in a drawer, not in their pharmacy dispensed packaging, and were loose in a cup labeled with a resident's name. The findings include: Review of the facility's Policy, titled Medication Storage in the Facility undated, revealed medications and biologicals are stored properly, following manufacturer's recommendations or those of the supplier. Per review, outdated, contaminated medications are to be immediately removed from stock and disposed of and reordered from pharmacy. Continued review revealed each…
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 · C2022-01-07 · tag F0582 — widespreadGive 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview and review of the Form Instructions for the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) the facility failed to issue a NOMNC form to a resident, or his/her responsible party, two (2) days before the last day of coverage as indicated on the completed NOMNC forms; for one (1) of three (3) residents sampled for Beneficiary Protection Notification (Resident #65). The findings include: Review of the Form Instructions for the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) CMS-10095 revealed A Medicare health provider must give an advance, completed copy of the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) to enrollees receiving skilled nursing, no later than two days before the termination of services. Review of Resident #65 record revealed the facility admitted the resident to Medicare Part A Services on 10/27/2021 and discharged the resident home on [DATE]. Further record review revealed the facility did not provide the resident or his/her representative a NOMNC notice two (2) days before 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.
- 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| YOUNTS, WHITTNEY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 01/17/2014 |
| REFFITT, PHYLLIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2006 |
| ROBERTS, ROGER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2006 |
| SMITH, BOBBY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2006 |
| SMITH, TRAVIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/06/2013 |
| WILSON, ARNOLD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/1980 |
| WILSON, JASON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2006 |
| HEALTH SYSTEMS OF KENTUCKY, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 06/01/2006 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 8 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.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 93% 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.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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, FY2024). 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 KY
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 Kentucky 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 185273. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-09, 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.