The Gardens At Foley LLC

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.

48.2% 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 49 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 60.9% 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 46 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 0.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 36% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 21% 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 78 beds and averages 70.0 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 8 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 3.62 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.84 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.08 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 3.13 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.82 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.07 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 56% 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.

31 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 20 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · Gcited before2024-04-16 · 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 interview and document review, the facility failed to follow a care planned intervention to reduce the risk of falls for 1 of 4 residents (R4) reviewed for falls. This resulted in actual harm for R4 when he fell and sustained a thoracic fracture. R4 required subsequent hospitalization, where he expired. The facility implemented corrective action so the deficient practice was issued at past non-compliance. The past non-compliance began on [DATE], when R4 fell and sustained a fracture after staff failed to follow a care planned intervention. The facility implemented corrective action on [DATE], prior to the start of the abbreviated survey, and was issued as past non-compliance. Findings include: A Facility Reported Incident (FRI) report, submitted to the State Agency (SA) on [DATE] at 1:33 a.m., identified R4 fell at 3:25 p.m. after he self-transferred. R4 stated he gathered items in preparation for a shower, and when he went to grab the door handle, he missed and fell to the floor. He initially denied…

  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 · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · E2026-06-25 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — pattern
  Provide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
  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 document review the facility failed to ensure they maintained sufficient numbers of staff to assist 5 of 5 residents (R5, R6, R7, R8 and R9) in a timely manner. This had the potential to affect all residents residing on the 300, 400 and 500 units of the facility.Findings include: R5R5's admission Record indicated she admitted to the facility 3/22/21. R5's diagnoses included chronic kidney disease, obesity and dysphagia.R5's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified intact cognition and indicated she was dependent on staff to complete toileting. The MDS indicated R5 was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder and required assistance to transfer.During continuous observation on 6/23/26 at 1:05 p.m. through 2:25 p.m., R5 was seated in her room in a wheelchair in the dark. Nursing assistant (NA)-A approached R5 who told NA-A she needed to be changed. NA-A told R5 she would need to get the lift. NA-A left the room and did not return. At 2:05 p.m., R5 remained…

  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 no plan of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-06-25 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — pattern
  Set up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview and document review the facilities Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to address resident concerns related to call light wait times which resulted in cares not being performed and toileting tasks not being completed in a timely manner. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility who required assistance from staff to completed activities of daily living. Findings include: Refer to F725:Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to ensure they maintained sufficient numbers of staff to assist residents in a timely manner on the 300, 400 and 500 units of the facility.During document review and interview on 6/25/26 at 1:38 p.m., with the administrator, the 2026, QAPI notes related to staffing were reviewed. The administrator stated in January the notes identified concerns related to staffing as it related to new hires. The administrator said nothing was noted related to call lights for the month of February. In March, the administrator said the committee discussed call light…

  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.

  Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has no plan of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-25 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
  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 document review the facility failed to ensure a dignified toileting experience for 2 of 3 residents (R5, R9) reviewed for incontinence care.Findings include:R5R5's admission Record indicated she admitted to the facility 3/22/21. R5's diagnoses included chronic kidney disease, obesity and dysphagia.R5's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified intact cognition and indicated she was dependent on staff to complete toileting. The MDS indicated R5 was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder and required assistance to transfer.During continuous observation on 6/23/26 at 1:05 p.m. through 2:25 p.m., R5 was seated in her room in a wheelchair in the dark. Nursing assistant (NA)-A approached R5 who told NA-A she needed to be changed. NA-A told R5 she would need to get the lift. NA-A left the room and did not return. At 2:05 p.m., R5 remained seated in her wheelchair with her head down and remained there until 2:25 p.m.During interview on 6/23/26 at 2:26 p.m.,…

  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 no plan of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-25 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure 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 interview and document review the facility failed to accurately code a facility acquired pressure ulcer on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 1 of 3 residents (R4) reviewed for pressure ulcers.Findings include:R4's Transfer/Discharge Report printed 6/30/26, indicated she admitted to the facility 3/19/26. R4's diagnoses included vascular dementia, malnutrition and hemiplegia (paralysis or severe weakness affecting one side of the body) and hemiparesis (one-sided muscle weakness).R4's Wound Evaluation dated 5/28/26, identified a peri-anal posterior pressure ulcer, stage III (Full thickness tissue loss. Subcutaneous fat may be visible, but bone, tendon, or muscle is not exposed. Slough may be present but does not obscure the depth of tissue loss. May include undermining and tunneling).R4's care plan revised 6/21/26, indicated alteration in skin integrity related to overall decline in condition, current wound to coccyx. The care plan directed staff to document on skin condition and keep provider informed.R4'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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has no plan of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-25 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  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 document review the facility failed to investigate the cause of an injury that resulted in pain and a change in transfer status for 1 of 1 resident (R5) reviewed with an injury which occurred during a transfer. Findings include:R5's admission Record indicated she admitted to the facility 3/22/21. R5's diagnosis included chronic kidney disease, obesity and dysphagia.R5's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified intact cognition and indicated she was dependent on staff to complete toileting. The MDS indicated R5 was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder and required partial to moderate assistance to transfer.R5's care plan dated 10/1/24, identified a self-care deficit and an alteration in elimination and indicated she required assistance from one staff for bed mobility and toileting. The care plan was revised 6/24/26, and directed staff to transfer using a full body mechanical lift and two staff.R5's Progress Notes identified the following:6/16/26, R5…

  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 no plan of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-18 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
  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 document review, the facility failed to provide toileting assistance in a timely manner for 1 of 1 resident (R4), reviewed for dignity. Findings include: R4's face sheet printed 3/19/26, indicated admitted to the facility on [DATE], and had the following diagnoses: unspecified focal traumatic brain injury (localized brain damage from a specific impact to the brain), seizures, major depressive disorder, and morbid obesity. During interview on 3/18/26 at 1:16 p.m., R4 stated he was aware when he needed to have a bowel movement and he notified staff by a push button call light system. R4 stated when he felt the urge to have a bowel movement, he was supposed to be transferred to the toilet or a commode to complete. R4 stated at times he waited an hour or more for staff to answer his call light and this resulted in incontinence. R4 stated this made him upset and frustrated. He felt 'like a little kid' and 'it's embarrassing to me'. Review of R4's call light log from 12/26/25…

  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 · Dcited before2025-10-29 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
  Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
  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 document review, the facility failed to adequately assess, document, and provide appropriate staff and provider updates for treatment orders for 1 of 3 residents (R1), when R1 was found to have buttock redness during an initial skin assessment that did not dissipate with pressure reduction, or when an open area was observed by staff to R1's buttocks the following day. R1 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 10/16/25.Findings include: A 10/8/25 hospital Oncology Note identified R1 had pain related to concurrent chemoradiation therapy and radiation dermatitis (Grade 1) to the inguinal (groin) area. R1's hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], identified R1's primary problem was vaginal pain. R1 was diagnosed with vulvar cancer and underwent chemotherapy, and radiation that started on 10/8/25. She was provided discharge orders for perineal care related to dryness, to help wick moisture away, and for discomfort to the groin/vulva area [related to effects of radiation].…

  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 · D2025-09-17 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
  Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
  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 document review, the facility failed to update the provider as ordered when resident gained weight for 1 of 1 resident (R54) reviewed for dialysis. R54's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R54 was cognitively intact, required extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). R54 had diagnoses which included end stage renal disease, vascular prosthetic device, anemia, cardiomegaly and hypertension. R54's order summary printed 9/17/25, indicated R54 had an order dated 8/28/25, for weight gain - call your provider if you gain 3 pounds or more overnight, or gain 5 pounds in a week. A review of R54's weight record identified on 8/31/2025, R54 weight was 95.4 pounds (lbs.). When weighed on 9/1/2025, R54 was 103.6 lbs. - a 7.2-pound weight gain overnight. On 9/2/2025 R54's weight was 100.0 lbs. then on 9/3/2025, R54's weight was 105.0 lbs. - a five-pound weight gain overnight. On 9/4/2025, R54's weight was 99.6 lbs., then on 9/5/2025, R54's weight was 102.6 lbs. -…

  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 · Dcited before2025-09-17 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure 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 observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the resident minimum data set assessments (MDS) were accurately documented for 1 of 3 residents (R4) in the sample who were reviewed for weight loss. Findings include: R4's Diagnosis Report (print date of 9/17/25) documented the following diagnoses: type 2 diabetes and morbid (severe) obesity due to excess calories. R4's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], R4 was documented as moderately cognitively impaired and was dependent on staff with dressing, bathing, bed mobility and transfers. R4's MDS further indicated in Section K Swallowing / Nutritional Status, resident had experienced a significant weight loss, recording the weight of 356 pound (lbs). In review of the facility's Resident Matrix (a document created from resident MDS data collected) also indicated R4 had a significant weight loss. During initial screening and interview on 9/14/25 at 1:09 p.m., R4 sat in a room recliner watching TV. R4 appeared to be…

  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 · D2025-09-17 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Level II Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) reassessment was conducted, documented, and retained to ensure mental health needs were appropriately addressed or provided for 1 of 3 residents (R53) reviewed for PASARR. Findings include: R53's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], identified R53 had intact cognition and required assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). R53's diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder - bipolar type, hypertension, ulcerative colitis, diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, psychotic disorder, schizophrenia and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). R53's pre-admission screening (PAS), dated 3/30/21, indicated R53 required a Level II assessment for mental illness to be done before admission to a nursing home. PAS further indicated R53 was in assisted living with an admission to the nursing home on 4/2/21 with an anticipated length of stay listed, Less…

  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

$8,824 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $8,824 — penalty dated 2024-04-16

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to MONARCH HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT — 45 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

CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

5 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 $1.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% 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 MN