Little Sisters of the Poor
15 Audubon Plaza Drive, Louisville, KY 40217 · Non profit - Corporation · 35 certified beds · (502) 636-2300 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- 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 (4/5)
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0568)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (59%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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) | 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 | 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 2 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 30.4% | 13.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| 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 | 0.7% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.2% | 1.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 6.2% | 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 | 8.2% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 27.5% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.1% | 29.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.5% | 4.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.5% | 19.0% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.4% | 16.1% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.74 | 1.94 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.72 | 2.14 | 1.80 | typical |
§ 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 35 beds and averages 29.2 residents a day — about 83% occupied, or roughly 6 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 5.89 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.40 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.86 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 5.31 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.13 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.63 to 0.82 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 59% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-05-16 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for 1 of 2 Medication Rooms observed. Addtionally, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were disposed of by the expiration date for 3 of 6 medication and treatment carts. Observation of a medication room refrigerator revealed an insulin pen with no resident label and another pen that was expired. Observation of medication carts revealed multiple medications stored beyond the labeled expiration date. The findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Medication Storage, last reviewed 02/2025, revealed the Home (facility) must store all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure and orderly manner. Per review, the facility was to ensure no expired or discontinued medications were stored within stock, house, routine or PRN (as necessary) medications that were readily available for administration. Continued review revealed the facility must not use discontinued, outdated…
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 · D2025-05-16 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's documents and policy, the facility failed to notify the resident and the resident's representative of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing and in a language and manner they understood as soon as practicable for 1 of 1 residents sampled for transfer/discharge out of the total sample of 14, (Resident (R)18). Additionally, the facility further failed to ensure the notice included the reason, date, and location for the transfer, as well as a statement of the resident's appeal rights and the contact information for the state Long-Term Care Ombudsman. The findings include: Review of the facility's Bed Hold and Return policy, reviewed on 02/2025, revealed it was the policy of the facility to provide residents who were transferred to the hospital or go on a therapeutic leave with written information about the State's bed hold duration and payment amount before the transfer. Additionally, review revealed the facility permitted…
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 before2025-05-16 · 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 review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to ensure staff maintained infection control during plating of food for meal service. Observation revealed dietary staff failed to change gloves and/or perform hand hygiene as required. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Infection Control, revised 09/20/2024, revealed in order to provide maximum protection for residents, and personnel from pathogenic microorganisms and infectious diseases, methods of prevention and control should be implemented. Further review revealed the primary objectives should be: prevention, referring to eliminating the occurrence of a disease or infection; and controlling which pertained to restricting the spread of existing diseases and infections. Observation on 05/13/2025 at 11:37 AM, of the lunch meal service revealed [NAME] (C) 1 plated food, which included opening a bun using her gloved hand, and opening the door to the serving cart without changing her gloves or performing hand hygiene in between touching the service cart and touching 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 · F2022-06-24 · tag F0568 — widespreadProperly hold, secure, and manage each resident's personal money which is deposited with the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents and/or resident representatives received quarterly trust account statements for thirty-two (32) of thirty-two (32) residents. The findings include: A review of the facility policy, Residents' Personal Funds, revised 02/2022, revealed the facility provided statements upon request by the Resident or Resident Guarantor and mailed the statements at least quarterly with a Statement of Receipt. Additionally, the facility's Resident Services was responsible for reviewing the statements with the Residents who were capable of understanding the information. During an interview on 06/21/2022 at 10:45 AM, Resident #25 (who the facility assessed as cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status [BIMS] score of 14) revealed the facility managed their money. Resident #25 indicated he/she wanted to know how much money was in their account and they were unaware of receiving any statements from the facility. Interview with Family Member #14, on 06/24/2022 at 10:44 AM, revealed stated they had not received 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 · F2022-06-24 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — widespreadConduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations (including nights and weekends) and emergencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop and implement a facility assessment. This had the potential to affect all residents. The findings include: A review of the policy titled, Developing Your Facility Assessment: Essential Components, dated 04/2017, indicated, Facility Assessment states a home must conduct and document a facility-wide assessment to define what resources are necessary to care for its Resident competently during day-to-day operations and emergencies. This facility assessment must be completed annually, or when significant changes to the resident population occur. During an interview on 06/23/2022 at 8:13 AM, the Administrator stated, I know we had a facility assessment that was done in 2019, but I do not know where to find one for 2020 or 2021 and yes, the one that was provided to the survey team was completed the day the team arrived. A review of the quality assurance performance improvement (QAPI) meeting minutes from 11/24/2021 indicated the performance improvement project (PIP) for the quarter was for 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 · F2022-06-24 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — widespreadHave a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a quality assurance performance improvement (QAPI) plan and program. This had the potential to affect all residents. The findings include: Review of facility policy, Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program (QAPI), dated 08/2017, revealed, the facility Medical Director and the Administrator were responsible for implementing the QAPI Program and organizing facility and medical staff functions to accomplish this program. Additionally, a Quality Assurance (QA)Committee coordinated a comprehensive QAPI Program involving medical, nursing, and other ancillary support services. Furthermore, the QA Program was reviewed annually by the QAPI Committee to ensure the program was comprehensive, effective in improving Resident care, and was cost effective. During an interview, on 06/23/2022 at 9:37 AM, the surveyor informed the Administrator the survey team requested the facility QAPI plan since survey initiation on 06/21/2022. The Administrator stated, I do…
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 · D2022-06-24 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when 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 observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to administer oxygen as ordered by the physician for one (1) of two (2) residents (Resident #20) reviewed for oxygen. The findings include: A review of the facility policy, Oxygen Therapy, Nasal Cannula, revised 03/2021, revealed the facility attached a pre-filled humidifier bottle to flow meter and attached nasal cannula tubing to humidifier bottle. Review of facility records revealed the facility admitted Resident #20 on 09/15/2021 with a diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Review of the Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the facility assessed Resident #20 with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three (3) out of fifteen (15), and determined the resident with severe cognitive impairment. Additionally, the MDS indicated the resident received oxygen while a resident. A review of the Comprehensive Care Plan, initiated 09/15/2021, revealed the resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-06-05 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and review of the facility's policy, it was determined the facility failed to ensure discontinued controlled medication was disposed in a timely manner. Observation revealed the cabinet in the Lab Room, which held controlled medication awaiting destruction, contained one thousand and twenty-five and one half (1025.5) pills of controlled medication. In addition, forty point five (40.5) milliliters (ml) of liquid Morphine Sulfate, and zero point five (0.5) ml of injectable Testosterone were stored in the same location. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Narcotics-Disposal, revised [DATE], revealed all discontinued or expired narcotics were to be removed from the unit inventory locked medication cart, stored in a locked box in the lab room, and double locked. The stored narcotics were to be reconciled monthly and placed in an empty sharp container with an added solidifier. Furthermore, the consultant pharmacist monitored the narcotic records to ensure 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 · Dcited before2019-06-05 · 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 and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure scheduled medications were stored securely in one (1) of one (1) medication rooms. Observation of the medication room refrigerator revealed the locked boxed for scheduled medications was not permanently affixed to the refrigerator, nor double locked. In addition, the key to the cabinet that held scheduled medications awaiting destruction was in the Director of Nursing's (DON) top desk drawer, which was unlocked. The findings include: The facility did not provide a policy for securement of medications. 1. Observation, on 06/05/19 at 10:16 AM, revealed the unit medication refrigerator was not locked. The refrigerator contained a black locked medication box; however, it was not affixed to the inside of the refrigerator. Registered Nurse (RN) #1 removed the black box from the refrigerator and placed it on the counter. The box contained the following scheduled medications: four (4) vials of 2 milliliters (ml) Lorazepam; one (1) 30 ml bottle of 2 milligrams (mg) per 2 ml of Lorazepam; and one (1) 10 ml…
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 before2019-06-05 · 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 review of the facility's policies, it was determined the facility failed to ensure staff maintained infection control during medication administration for one (1) of twenty (20) residents, Resident #9. Observation revealed staff failed to sanitize hands before and after medication administration. In addition, staff handled medication with bare hands and placed a medication tablet on the surface of a table. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Infection Control Standard Practice, revised August 2017, revealed hands were to be washed before and after contact with a resident. Review of the facility's policy, Medication Administration, dated August 2017, revealed staff was to wash hands before and after administration of medications. Waterless hand sanitizer was on each medication cart to be used between administration of medication to each resident. Review of the facility's policy, Handwashing, dated March 2018, revealed hands were to be washed before and after direct contact with residents, residents' equipment, and before and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAGYAR, CHERYL | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/09/2016 |
| COURTNEY, MAUREEN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 05/13/2011 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 5 rows in the source record cover these 2 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.
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 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 185260. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-16, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.