No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Porter Hills Health Center

3600 Fulton St E, Grand Rapids, MI 49546 · Non profit - Corporation · 39 certified beds · (616) 949-4971 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (616) 949-4971 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 9 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.

In its favor
  • 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 (5/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (30% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement

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.

5/5
CMS overall
5 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 5 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 5 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Urgent care / clinic
330 E Beltline Ave NE Ste 100 · (616) 752-6235 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
630 Kenmoor Ave SE · (616) 280-4211 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Meijer1.2 mi
1000 E Beltline Ave NE · (616) 957-1580 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 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 4 to 5 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.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased9.7%10.8%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight0.0%5.4%5.4%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.8%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection4.3%1.5%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.7%4.3%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury4.3%3.0%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened22.5%12.0%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication12.7%19.4%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%95.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.5%5.1%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control27.3%20.0%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table14.3%14.8%17.1%better

* 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.

§ 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

0.79
RN hours/ resident / day
0.86
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.92
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.58
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.67
RN hoursweekends
30.0%
Total nursing turnover
22.2%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 39 beds and averages 36.1 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 3 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 4.58 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.79 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.92 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.38 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.66 on weekdays — 6% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.85 to 0.67 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 30% 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

1
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-07-24)
5
at the previous standard inspection (2024-08-01)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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 · E2025-07-24 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — pattern
    Keep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure personal resident information was kept private for 20 (Resident #5, #19, #32, #22, #37, #21, #20, #28, #10, #26, #14, #34, #12, #36, #9, #27, #29, #38, #17, & #8) of 37 residents reviewed for privacy resulting in the feeling of being uncomfortable with others having access to their personal information and the potential for further personal information to be accessed by unauthorized persons. Findings include:Resident #5:Review of Resident #5's brief interview for mental status, dated 6/19/25, was scored 15 which reflected intact cognition. During an observation and interview on 07/22/2025 at 10:34 AM, in Resident #5's room there was an approximately 8 inches by 11 inches piece of paper, untitled and undated, with various pieces of information on 20 residents (Resident #5, #19, #32, #22, #37, #21, #20, #28, #10, #26, #14, #34, #12, #36, #9, #27, #29, #38, #17, & #8) facing up with the information visible. This document was on an approximately thigh high table next to the window in Resident #5's room.…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2024-08-01 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store and prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This deficient practice has the potential to result in food borne illness among all residents who consume food from the kitchen. Findings include: During a tour of the facility, starting at 9:40 AM on 7/30/24, an interview with Chef Manager U found that the facility does not cool much, but they do maintain a log for cooling. During a tour of the walk-in cooler, at 9:46 AM on 7/30/24, it was observed that three 1/8th pans of leftover breakfast puree items were found in the walk in cooler warm to the touch and covered in saran wrap. When asked about the items, Chef Manager U stated they don't typically keep those items. During a revisit to the kitchen, at 3:12 PM on 7/30/24, it was observed that a 1.5 gallon container of Corn chowder soup was found in the walk in cooler covered with saran wrap. A temperature of the soup was taken at this time and was found to be 107ºF in the middle. An interview with [NAME] V and Dining…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-08-01 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure 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 accurately complete Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments in 2 of 12 residents (Resident #18 & #33) reviewed for accuracy of assessments, resulting in an inaccurate reflection of the resident's status. Findings include: Review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, v1.18.11, Chapter 3 Section O: Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs, revealed .The intent of the items in this section is to identify any special treatments, procedures, and programs that the resident received or performed during the specified time periods .The treatments, procedures, and programs listed in Item O0110, Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs, can have a profound effect on an individual's health status, self-image, dignity, and quality of life .Reevaluation of special treatments and procedures the resident received or performed, or programs that the resident was involved in during the 14-day look-back period is important to ensure the continued appropriateness of the treatments, procedures, or…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-08-01 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop 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, and record review, the facility failed to update/revise a comprehensive care plan after a change in resident condition in 3 of 12 residents (Resident #18, #8, & #37) reviewed for comprehensive care plans, resulting in an inaccurate reflection of the resident's status, and the potential for unmet medical, physical, mental, and psychosocial needs. Findings include: Review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, v1.18.11, Chapter 4: Care Area Assessment (CAA) Process and Care Planning, revealed .the comprehensive care plan is an interdisciplinary communication tool. It 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 psychosocial well-being. The care plan must be reviewed and revised periodically, and the services provided or arranged must be consistent with each resident's written plan of care . 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-08-01 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to thoroughly assess, investigate and prevent falls, in one of three residents reviewed for falls (Resident #37), resulting in likelihood of additional falls and injuries. Findings include: Resident #37 (R37) On 7/30/2024 at 9:56 AM, R37 was observed lying in bed and stated he fell from his wheelchair recently attempting to reach for his call light and had scraped his back. In review of R37's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with assessment reference date of 6/11/2024, he was admitted at the facility on 2/29/2024; had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, a short cognitive screener) score of 13 (13-15 Cognitively intact). The same MDS indicated R37 had a diagnosis of dementia and had a history of a stroke with weakness/paralysis on one side of his body. Incident Report dated 3/07/2024 at 9:45 AM revealed R37 fell in his room and called a family member for help. The same report revealed R37 was observed lying on his left side next to the bed in his room and stated to staff he was reaching for his cell phone with his…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-08-01 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolated
    Develop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
    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, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were screened for eligibility to receive pneumococcal vaccinations and receive vaccination if eligible for 2 (Resident #9 and #18) of 5 residents reviewed for vaccinations, resulting in the potential of acquiring, transmitting, or experiencing complications from pneumococcal pneumonia. Findings include: Resident #9 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #9 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included type 2 diabetes. Review of Resident #9's Immunization Record indicated that Resident #9 received a PCV13 (pneumococcal vaccination) on 5/2/2017. During an interview on 7/31/24 at 2:35 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported that she was responsible for ensuring all residents were screened for vaccination eligibility and administration. DON B was unable to report when Resident #9 was last reviewed for pneumococcal vaccination eligibility. In a communication via email on 7/31/24 at 5:10…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2023-06-14 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespread
    Have a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
    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 and record review, the facility failed to assure a Registered Nurse was on duty for eight consecutive hours a day seven days a week, resulting in the potential for inadequate coordination of emergent or routine care with negative clinical outcome affecting all residents in the facility. Findings include: Review of the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) report revealed: the facility triggered for No RN Hours .four (4 ) or more days within the quarter with no RN hours. for the Fiscal Year (FY) Quarter 2 2023 ([DATE] - [DATE]) On the following dates: No RN Hours Triggered for 1/2/23 (Mon); 1/7/23 (Sat); 1/8/23 (Sun); 1/15/23 (Sun); 1/21/23 (Sat); 1/22/23 (Sun); 2/4/23 (Sat); 2/11/23 (Sat); 2/12/23 (Sun); 2/25/23 (Sat) . During an interview on 6/14/23 at 12:30 PM., Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A reported during the beginning of the year (January and February 2023) their (the facilities) weekend Registered Nurse (RN) that typically worked the weekend shifts had broken her ankle. NHA A reported she had…

    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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-06-14 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
    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 and record review, the facility failed to implement a home exercise program (HEP also known as restorative exercise program) per physician order for 1 (Resident #18) of 1 resident reviewed for rehabilitation and restorative services resulting in the potential for decline in range of motion and mobility and increased weakness. Findings include: Resident #18 Review of a Face Sheet revealed Resident #18 was a male, with pertinent diagnoses which included: weakness; primary osteoarthritis, left shoulder; and primary osteoarthritis, right shoulder. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #18, with a reference date of 4/15/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, out of a total possible score of 15, which indicated Resident #12 was cognitively impaired. In an interview on 6/12/23 at 11:40 AM, Resident #18 reported would like to have more therapy. Resident #18 reported had been receiving therapy 2-3 times per week to work on his arms but thought therapy…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-06-14 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    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 perform proper hand hygiene during wound care dressing change for 1 resident (Resident #185) reviewed for wound care resulting in the potential for the spread of infection, cross-contamination, and disease transmission for residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Resident #185 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #185, was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included: lymphedema (Tissue swelling caused by an accumulation of fluid, most commonly occurring in the arms and legs) Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #185, with a reference date of 5/19/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15/15 which indicated Resident #185 was cognitively intact. During an observation on 06/13/23 at 10:57 AM., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) O entered Resident #185's room, applied gloves, and did not perform hand hygiene. LPN O removed a plastic…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
UNITED METHODIST RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.Organization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 03/01/2019
FETYKO, STEPHENIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2019
FRITZ, MICHAELIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 03/01/2019
IVES, HARLEMIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 07/01/2024
NIXON, JOHNIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 03/01/2019
UMRCPH, INC.OrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 03/01/2019
BOETTCHER, IRISIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/28/2025
CARLSON, KALENIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2024
MAAG, NICOLEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2021
WATKINS, TRISHAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2021

CMS files one row per role, so the 18 rows in the source record cover these 10 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

2 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.

$14.6M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-75.6%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$3.4M
Related-party expense13% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 8%Medicare 0%Other / private 92%

This home reported $3.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% 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 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

$299per resident / day
operating cost
$9,084per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$170per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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 MI

Paying with Medicaid

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 Michigan Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in Michigan
$11,254/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$11,969/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,818/mo
Assisted living

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 235310. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-24, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next