Landmark of Lake Charles
2335 Oak Park Blvd, Lake Charles, LA 70601 · For profit - Corporation · 130 certified beds · (337) 478-2920 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- 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 | 4 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 |
| 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 fell from 3 to 2 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 | 23.0% | 17.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.2% | 5.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.0% | 1.2% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.0% | 2.1% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 2.3% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 7.2% | 3.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.0% | 17.9% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.9% | 23.2% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 78.4% | 94.9% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.4% | 5.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 30.9% | 15.8% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 28.5% | 22.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 8.7% | 3.1% | 1.4% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 44.7% | 76.3% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 41.3% | 28.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 28.3% | 14.8% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.37 | 2.56 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 5.36 | 2.74 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
47.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 34 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 61.5% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 52 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 54% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% 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 | 47.5%CMS range 37.8–61.5 | 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 | 11.4%CMS range 7.8–15.5 | 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 | 61.5% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 50.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 50.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 97.7% | 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 | 97.4% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 95.2% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 4.5% | 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 | 10.2% | 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 | 6.3%CMS range 3.4–12.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.18 | 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 130 beds and averages 100.1 residents a day — about 77% occupied, or roughly 30 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 4.08 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.40 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.68 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 3.25 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.42 on weekdays — 26% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.52 to 0.12 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
16 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 6 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-09-10 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 88 residents who ate out of the kitchen. The facility's census was 97.Findings:Review of the facility's policy, Sanitary Conditions of the Food Service Department, with a last review date of 01/15/2025, revealed the following in part: Policy: Facilities and equipment used in the preparation and serving of food provided to residents are safe and sanitary. h. Cleaning and Sanitizing: a. Food contact surfaces are washed, rinsed and sanitized: i. After each use, iv. At four hour intervals while the kitchen is in use; 2. Cleaning Program, a. The Director of Food and Nutrition Services develops a master cleaning schedule that includes: i. what should be cleaned, ii. Who should clean it., iii. When it should be cleaned, iv. How it should be cleaned, b. The Director of Food and Nutrition Services supervises the daily cleaning and monitors the completion of all cleaning tasks. An initial tour of the kitchen was conducted on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-10 · 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 record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to notify the State's Long-Term Care Ombudsman of emergency transfers in writing for 1 (#24) of 2 (#24 and #102) sampled residents reviewed for transfer and discharge requirements.Findings:On 09/10/2025, a review of the facility's policy titled, Discharge Transfer and Planning, with a revision date of 08/2025, read in part.Ombudsman Notification: The community shall notify the resident and the resident's representative(s) of the transfer or discharge and the notices must be sent to the representative of the Office of the State Log-Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman. Review of Resident #24's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed in part, Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included in part, respiratory failure, unspecified with hypoxia and unspecified combined systolic (congestive) and diastolic (congestive) heart failure. Further review of the EMR revealed Resident #24 had an emergency transfer to a local hospital on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-10 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) was completed accurately for 2 (#25 and #27) out of 42 sampled residents. The deficient practice had the potential to affect a total census of 97 residents. Findings:On 09/10/2025, a review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Assessment, with a last review date of 08/28/2024, read in part. Any healthcare professional that completes a portion of the assessment must sign and certify the accuracy of the portion of the assessment that they have completed.Resident #25A review of Resident #25's electronic health record (EHR) revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included in part, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic polyneuropathy, cerebral infarction, bipolar disorder, psychotic disorder with delusions, and history of falling.Further review of Resident #25's EHR revealed she had a fall on 08/19/2025 with no injuries.A further review of Resident #25's August 2025…
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 before2025-09-10 · 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 record review and interviews, the facility failed to refer a resident with a diagnosed mental disorder to the appropriate state-designated authority for Level II PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) evaluation and determination for 1 ( #24) of 3 (#3, #6 and #24) residents investigated for PASARR in a final sample of 42 residents. Findings:Review of Resident #24's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included in part, schizophrenia, unspecified and major depressive disorder, unspecified.Review of Resident #24's Level I PASARR dated 07/06/2009 revealed in Section I, Question #1 A. Approved for Medicaid medical eligibility services effective 06/18/2009. No further documentation nor evidence of a Level II PASARR determination was provided.On 09/09/2025 at 12:45 p.m., an interview was conducted with S3SSD (Social Service Director). She reported she was responsible for residents' PASARRs at the facility. S4SSD stated 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 · D2025-09-10 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to develop a person- centered care plan for 2 (#25 and #27)) out of 42 sampled residents. The deficient practice had the potential to affect a total census of 97 residents. Findings:On 09/10/2025, a review of the facility's policy titled, Care Plan Process, with a last reviewed date of 01/15/2025, read in part, the Care Plan must include measurable objectives and time frames and must describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychological well-being. The care plan must be reviewed and revised periodically, on an ongoing basis to reflect the services provided or arranged and must be consistent with each resident's written plan of care.Resident #25A review of Resident #25's electronic health record (EHR) revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included in part, bipolar disorder and psychotic disorder with delusions.A review of Resident #25's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-10 · 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 policy review the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent development and transmission of disease and infection as evidence by: failing to ensure glucometer machines were cleaned and disinfected per the facility's policy and manufacturer's guidelines. This deficient practice occurred during 1 of 2 observations of glucose monitoring during medication pass. Findings:On 09/09/2025, a review of policy titled, Blood Glucose Quality Control with last review date of 07/2025 read in part, Maintenance of Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems, Always clean the meter after each use. Gently wipe and clean surface of the meter with an approved disinfectant wipe per facility policy.On 09/09/2025, a review of the manufacturer's guidelines/user instructions manual for the Assure Platinum Glucose Monitoring System read in part: cleaning and disinfecting can be completed by using a commercially available environmental protection agency- registered disinfectant or germicide wipe. On 09/09/2025 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-07-01 · tag F0644 — patternCoordinate 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 record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to refer a resident with a diagnosed mental disorder to the appropriate state-designated authority for Level II PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) evaluation and determination for 2 ( #2, #3) of 6 (#1, #2, #3, #R1, #R2, #R3) residents investigated for PASARR in a final sample of 6 residents. Findings: Review of Resident #2's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included in part, major depressive disorder with severe psychotic symptoms, mood disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder. Review of Resident #2's Level I PASARR dated 04/15/2024 revealed section III, Question #1 Do you suspect the applicant has, or has the applicant ever been diagnosed as having a mental illness? Include mental disorders that may lead to chronic disability. If yes, please check the diagnosis below. No was indicated. Further review of Resident #2's records revealed no evidence that Level II…
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 · E2025-07-01 · tag F0850 — failed to provide social-work services — patternHire a qualified full-time social worker in a facility with more than 120 beds.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure it employed a qualified social worker (SW) on a full-time basis. The facility had 130 licensed beds. Findings: On 06/30/2025 at 10:00 a.m., during an interview with S1ADM (Administrator), a request was made for the facility SW's credentials. On 06/30/2025 at 12:30 p.m., an interview was conducted with S3SS (Social Services). She confirmed she was SW for the facility. She stated she had a bachelor's degree in social work. At that time, a request for her credentials was made. She stated she would have to look for her diploma. S3SS stated she could provide her unofficial transcript. On 07/01/2025 at 8:50 a.m., during an interview with S3SS, she confirmed she did not have a copy of her diploma. A request for her transcript was made. On 07/01/2025 at 9:15 a.m., S3SS provided a copy of a receipt for a request for her diploma. A second request for her transcript was made. On 07/01/2025 at 11:25 a.m., an interview with S3SS was conducted. S3SS confirmed she did not have a copy of her transcript nor had received a copy 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 · Dcited before2025-07-01 · 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 and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1(#1) of 6 (#1, #2, #3, #R1, #R2, #R3) sampled residents. Findings: A review of Resident #1's medical records revealed an admission date of 08/14/2024 with diagnoses which included but were not limited to current episode depressed, severe, with psychotic features; major depressive disorder recurrent, severe with psychotic symptoms; persistent mood [affective] disorder, unspecified; borderline personality disorder; anxiety and bipolar disorder. A review of Resident #1's Pre admission Screening and Assessment Resident Review (PASARR), dated 08/12/2024, revealed a Level II determination that read, Individual meets state law criteria for intellectual/developmental disability . A review of Resident #1's MDS with an ARD (Assessment Reference date) date of 09/10/2024, section A1500 revealed the following: Is the resident currently considered by the state level II PASARR process to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-09-25 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, and interview, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service, and ensure sanitary conditions were maintained in the kitchen as evidenced by: 1. a thick layer of debris on the deep fryer cooking oil collection area; 2. expired foods from the kitchen walk in cooler, and dry storage area; 3. opened food items not labeled with the date and time; and 4. sticky residue with food debris on the cart used to bring food items from one part of the kitchen to another. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the 87 residents who consumed food from the kitchen. Findings: On 09/23/2024 at 8:33 a.m., a tour of the facility's kitchen was conducted with S1DS (Dietary Supervisor), who stated that she was responsible for the day's management of the kitchen. On 09/23/2024 at 8:39 a.m., an observation of the deep fryer was conducted with S1DS that revealed the cooking oil collection area had a thick layer of debris. S1DS stated the deep fryer was last used on 09/17/2024 and confirmed that is was not cleaned after it was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 6 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-25 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 and interview, the facility failed to accurately code the resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Hospice care for 1 (Resident #83) out of 29 sampled residents. Findings: Review of Resident # 83's electronic health record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review of his record revealed a Physician's order dated 06/06/2024 for Admit to Hospice with terminal diagnosis of End Stage Neural Vascular Dementia. Review of Resident #83's Quarterly MDS assessment, with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 09/09/2024, revealed: Section O for Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs .K1. Hospice Care . B. While a Resident . Coded as No. On 09/25/2024 at 08:45 a.m., an interview and record review was conducted with S2LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse). She confirmed that Resident #83 was admitted to hospice care on 06/06/2024. She then reviewed Resident #83's Quarterly MDS, with ARD of 09/09/2024 and confirmed that hospice care was coded inaccurately as not receiving…
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 before2024-09-25 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to refer a resident with a diagnosed mental disorder to the appropriate state-designated authority for Level II PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) evaluation and determination for 1 ( #19) of 1 (#19) residents investigated for PASARR in a final sample of 29 residents. Findings: Review of Resident #19's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included in part, Major Depressive Disorder and Dementia; with Psychotic Disorder with Delusion added on 09/19/2023. Review of Resident #19's Level I PASARR dated 08/04/2023 revealed section III, Question #1 Do you suspect the applicant has, or has the applicant ever been diagnosed as having a mental illness? Include mental disorders that may lead to chronic disability. If yes, please check the diagnosis below. Answer checked was No. Further review of Resident #19's records revealed no evidence that Level II PASRR had been submitted 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 · Dcited before2024-09-25 · 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 observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary care and services that is in accordance with professional standards of practice as evidenced by failing to ensure the resident's oxygen equipment was stored properly for 1 (#77) out of 2 (#77, #84) residents reviewed for respiratory care, with the potential to effect 14 residents receiving oxygen therapy. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled Infection Control Oxygen Equipment Cleaning with a revision date of 06/2014, last review dated of 01/24/2024 revealed in part: 10. When not in use, store the mask/cannula in a plastic bag clearly labeled with the resident's name and date. Review of Resident #77's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses, not limited to, Acute Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia, Vascular Dementia and Dyspnea. Review of Resident #77's Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 09, indicating 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 · E2023-10-25 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the residents had a safe, clean, comfortable homelike environment by failing to maintain a clean environment in resident bathrooms for 5 (Resident #35, Resident #61, Resident #74, Resident #91, Resident #93) out of 37 sampled residents. This deficient practice had the potential to affect a total census of 103. Findings: Resident #35 On 10/23/2023 at 12:34 p.m., an observation was made of Resident #34's bathroom. The bathroom toilets seat, rim, and inside/outside of bowl was soiled with thick black and brown substances. On the inside of the toilet bowl, at the water line, there was a ring of black mildew. On 10/24/2023 at 8:40 a.m., a second observation was made of Resident #34's bathroom. The bathroom toilet seat, rim, and inside/outside of bowl was soiled with thick black and brown substances. On the inside of the toilet bowl, at the water line, there was black mildew. Resident #61 On 10/23/2023 12:10 p.m., an observation was made of Resident #61's bathroom. On the inside of the toilet bowl, at the water line,…
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 before2023-10-25 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 and interview, the facility failed to accurately code the resident's MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment for 1 (#104) out of 37 sampled residents. This deficient practice had the potential to affect a census of 103. Findings: Review of Resident 104's medical record revealed he was admitted on [DATE] and discharged on 09/29/2023. Resident #104's nursing progress noted dated 09/29/2023 at 10:41 a.m., indicated he had discharged to his home. Review of the facility's Detail Admission/Discharge Report dated 07/01/2023 through 10/23/2023 revealed on 09/29/2023 Resident's discharge location was home. Review of Resident 104's Discharge MDS with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 09/29/2023 revealed a planned discharge, return not anticipated assessment was completed. Section A-Identification Information, A2100 Discharge Status was coded 03, indicating acute hospital. On 10/24/2023 at 3:50 p.m., an interview and record review was conducted with S5ALPN (Assessment Licensed Practical Nurse). She…
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 before2023-10-25 · 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, and record review, the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards for 1 (#76) of 37 sampled residents. This deficient practice was evident when facility staff failed to ensure respiratory suction equipment was properly stored for Resident #76. Findings: On 10/24/2023 at 1:15 p.m. and on 10/25/2023 at 12:00 p.m., a request was made for S2DON (Director of Nursing) to provide the facility's policy regarding proper storage of respiratory suction equipment. By time of exit on 10/26/2023, the facility failed to provide the requested policy. Review of Resident #76's record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, Dysphagia, Functional Quadriplegia, and Generalized Muscle Weakness. Review of the resident's MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment dated [DATE], revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 1 indicating his cognition was severely impaired.…
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to THE BEEBE FAMILY — 48 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 1 of 5 | 2.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
The other 47 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 47; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAVID & FELICIA STALLARD CHILD TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 09/01/2009 |
| ELTON GLYNN BEEBE JR. & NANCY DOTY BEEBE IRRV TR UA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 01/01/2010 |
| GERARD AND ALISON DANOS CHILDRENS TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 09/01/2009 |
| JOSEPH & ALISON SADLER CHILDREN TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 09/01/2009 |
| MEDICO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 85% | since 01/01/2009 |
| PARKINSON, TONI | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| PATHWAY MANAGEMENT OF LOUISIANA LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2013 |
| PROVIDENCE CARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2009 |
| PROVIDER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| TRISTAR REHAB INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| BEEBE, BOBBY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2013 |
| BEEBE, ELTON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/01/2009 |
| JOHNSON, VERONICA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/09/2022 |
| LAFURIA, MARK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/03/2013 |
| PUGH, WILLIAM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/02/2017 |
| STALLARD, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2009 |
| ALISONS 2016 FAM TR NO 2 | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| ARIA CARE MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2022 |
| BEEBE 2013 CHILDRENS TR NG | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| FELICIAS 2016 FAM TR NO 2 | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| LOUISIANA EXTENDED CARE CENTERS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| LTC HIM CONSULTING INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2007 |
| OAK PARK HEALTHCARE PROPERTIES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| PHARMACEUTICAL CONSULTING SERVICES OF AMERICA LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/31/2010 |
| QSST TR FOR ALISON BEEBE SADLER DANOS AND HER DESCENDANTS | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| VERDIN ENTERPRISES, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 41 rows in the source record cover these 28 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
21 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 73% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. 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 LA
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 Louisiana 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 195630. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-10, 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.