Holt Senior Care and Rehab Center

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

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.

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.

58.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 136 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 58.2% 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 55 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 0.29 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 47% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 101 beds and averages 95.4 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 6 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 3.90 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.73 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.38 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.53 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.05 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.87 to 0.36 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 22% is below the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.

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 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 5 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · G2026-04-09 · 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to implement care planned interventions to prevent falls in 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #69) assessed for falls, resulting in repeated falls during staff assisted transfers and the potential for continued falls and/or serious injury. Findings include:Review of the Face Sheet and Minimum Data Set (MDS) with Assessment Reference Date of 1/22/26, reflected R69 was a [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction with hemiparesis affecting left non-dominant side(left side paralyzed , vascular dementia, left above the knee amputation, atrial fibrillation(heart arrythmia with use of blood thinners), cognitive communication deficit, and major depressive disorder The MDS reflected R69 had a BIM (assessment tool) score of 15 which indicated her ability to make daily decisions was cognitively intact, and she was dependent on staff for bed mobility, and all transfers.During an observation…

  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 · Dcited before2026-04-09 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate coding of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one (R80) of 19 reviewed.Findings include: Review of the medical record reflected R80 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included end stage renal disease and dependence on renal dialysis. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/3/25, reflected R80 received dialysis. The Quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 1/27/26, reflected R80 was not coded as receiving dialysis. On 04/09/2026 at 11:40 AM, R80 was observed lying in bed. A Physician's Order, with a revision date of 4/16/25, reflected R80's scheduled dialysis days were Monday, Wednesday, Friday and as needed. In an interview on 04/08/2026 at 3:36 PM, MDS Nurse H acknowledged R80's Quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 1/27/26, should have been coded for receiving dialysis.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-04-09 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop 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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were accurate and implemented for two out of 19 residents (Resident #8 & 69).Resident #8 (R8): Review of R8's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a code status of full code by default. Review of a Code Status Form dated [DATE], revealed R8 was a full code by default and was signed by the Physician and two witnesses. Review of a Code Status Form dated [DATE], revealed R8 was a full code by default and was signed by the Physician and two witnesses. Review of a Code Status Form dated [DATE], revealed R8 was a full code by default and was signed by two witnesses, but no Physician. Review of a Code Status Form dated [DATE], revealed R8 was a DNR (do not resuscitate) and was signed by the Physician and two witnesses. Record review of R8's care plan revealed a care plan in place with a Focus of Advanced Directives:, Advance Directives have been discussed & 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-04-09 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
  Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
  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 maintain complete and accurate medical records for one (R2) of 19 reviewed. Findings include:Review of the Face Sheet and Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date 3/12/26, reflected R2 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included cirrhosis of the liver, kidney failure, heart failure, diabetic, anxiety and depression. The MDS reflected R2 had a BIM (assessment tool) score of 15 which indicated her ability to make daily decisions was cognitively intact, and she required staff assist with dressing, hygiene, bathing, transfers, and toileting.During an observation on 4/07/2026 at 11:47 AM, R2 was in bed with guest at bedside. R2 reported currently had Hospice services since December and often Hospice services want pain medication given according to there direction and facility staff do not agree and stated, seems like they do not speak to each other.Review of R2 Progress Note,…

  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 · D2026-04-09 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolated
  Implement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
  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 ensure an antibiotic was administered as ordered for one (R4) of five reviewed. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed R4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Parkinson's Disease, diabetes, and peripheral vascular disease. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/19/26 revealed R4 scored 15 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). On 04/07/26 at 11:30 AM, R4 was observed sitting in her wheelchair in her room. R4 reported she was currently receiving an antibiotic for cellulitis in her right leg. R4's right leg was observed wrapped with a bandage. Review of the Physician's Order dated 3/4/26 and ordered to start on 3/4/36 at 2:00 PM, revealed an order for cephalexin (antibiotic) 500 milligrams (mg) three times a day for 7 days for cellulitis of the right lower extremity. Review of the Medication…

  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 · D2026-04-09 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolated
  Make sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
  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 safely transport portable oxygen tank, resulting in the increased likelihood of severe injury, potentially affecting all 92 residents in the facility, staff and visitors.Findings include:During an observation on 4/07/2026 at 12:07 PM, during the initial tour of the facility and screening process, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) F was observed carrying a portable oxygen tank down entire Hall C, past Hall C Nurse station and halfway down beginning of Hall C to the oxygen storage closet without oxygen transport cart. LPN F exited the oxygen storage room with portable oxygen tank in a transport cart and wheeled cart down both C Halls and entered room C23. Several Residents and staff were present in both C Halls at the time. During an interview on 4/08/2026 at 5:02 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) F reported working at the facility for over two years and had been a nurse for over 30 years. LPN F was queried about how to safely transport portable oxygen tanks. LPN F reported was called to management office 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.

  Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-01-15 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
  Provide 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 record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) was utilized for contact precaution and ensure hand hygiene was performed for four (Resident #22, 26, 52, and 57) of reviewed for contact precautions. Findings include: On 1/13/25 at 10:34 AM, a contact precaution sign was observed outside of the room of Resident #22 (R22) and Resident #57 (R57). The contact precaution sign indicated that hand washing prior to entry of the room, as well as donning a gown and gloves (PPE) was necessary prior to entering the room. On 1/13/25 at 10:37 AM, a contact precaution sign was observed outside of the room of Resident #26 (R26) and Resident #52 (R52). The contact precaution sign indicated that hand washing prior to entry of the room, as well as donning a gown and gloves was necessary prior to entering the room. In an interview on 1/13/25 at 10:38, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) P stated that both rooms were contact precautions due to a gastroenteritis virus that was affecting the residents. LPN P confirmed that hand…

  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 · D2025-01-15 · tag F0637 — isolated
  Assess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) timely for one (Resident #91) of 20 reviewed for Minimum Data Set (MDS). Findings include: Review of the clinical record reflected Resident # 91 (R91) was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic kidney disease. R91's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] reflected a BIMS of 4. Review of R91's monthly physician orders revealed a physician order for hospice dated 12/16/24. Hospice notes dated 12/16/24 revealed R91 was admitted on to hospice care as of 12/16/24. Further review of R91's clinical record revealed the SCSA MDS was initiated on 01/13/25 (incomplete as of 1/14/25). On 01/14/25 at 02:01 PM, during an interview with MDS Nurse D she acknowledge the SCSA MDS should have started in December when R91 was signed onto hospice care. MDS Nurse D offered no explanation why the Significant Change MDS was late.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-01-15 · tag F0640 — isolated
  Encode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to transmit Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) timely for two (Resident #49 and #89) of 20 reviewed. Findings include: Resident #49 (R49): Review of the medical record reflected R49 admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included diabetes and dependence on renal dialysis. R49's MDS history reflected a discharge return not anticipated MDS, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/31/24, which was completed on 9/11/24. The MDS had not been transmitted to CMS. Resident #89 (R89): Review of the medical record reflected R89 admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included aftercare following surgery for neoplasm (abnormal growth of tissue). R89's MDS history reflected a discharge return not anticipated MDS, with an ARD of 8/30/24, which was completed on 9/11/24. The MDS had not been transmitted to CMS. In an interview on 01/14/25 at 2:00 PM, MDS Nurse D reported the facility…

  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 · Dcited before2025-01-15 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate coding on a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one (Resident #96) of 20 reviewed. Findings include: Review of the medical record reflected Resident #96 (R96) admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included wedge compression fracture of the second thoracic vertebra. The discharge return not anticipated MDS, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/9/24, reflected R96 was coded for discharge to a short-term hospital. A Progress Note for 12/9/24 reflected R96 discharged home. In an interview on 01/15/25 at 12:03 PM, MDS Nurse D reported R96 discharged home, not to the hospital. MDS Nurse D acknowledged there was a coding error on the MDS.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-01-15 · tag F0645 — isolated
  PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
  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 confirm that the Pre-admission Screening And Resident Review (PASARR Level I determination request was sent to the Community Mental Health Service Program (CMHSP) for a level II Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) evaluation prior to their admission to the facility for 1 residents (#83) of 2 reviewed. Review of the clinical record reflected Resident # 83 (R83) was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include morbid obesity and bi-polar disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview Status Score of 15 out of 15 (cognitively intact). The mood section of the same MDS reflected R83 felt down, depressed or hopeless several days a week. Review of R83's clinical record reflected a 3877 dated 2/26/24 revealed R83 had a mental illness diagnosis and received psychotpic medication that included an anti-psychotic medication. Review of the 3878 dated 2/28/24 and signed by the physician reflected R83 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to NEXCARE HEALTH SYSTEMS — 20 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 →

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

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.

This home reported $1.3M 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.

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 MI