Mount Olivet Careview Home

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.

59.6% 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 240 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 54.0% 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 139 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 0.31 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 50% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% 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 155 beds and averages 145.4 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 10 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 5.25 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.33 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.40 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 4.90 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.39 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.45 to 1.03 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 21% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

17 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 6 are one tap away and print in full.

• Immediate jeopardy · J2024-07-16 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
  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 report, investigate, and initiate interventions for sexual abuse resulting in subsequent sexual abuse for 1 of 3 residents (R1). R1 was sexually abused by R2 on 7/6/24, and again on 7/10/24. The immediate jeopardy began on 7/6/24 when RN-A failed to report an allegation R2 had touched R1 between her legs over her clothing and was identified on 7/15/24. The director of nursing, assistant director of nursing, associate administrator, and nurse manager were notified of the immediate jeopardy at 4:45 p.m. on 7/15/24. The immediate jeopardy was removed on 7/16/24, but noncompliance remained at the lower scope and severity level of D - isolated which indicated no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy. Findings Include: R1's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 was mildly cognitively impaired with diagnoses including seizures, depression, schizophrenia, and legal blindness. R1's care plan…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-25 · 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 dining experience for 1 of 2 residents (R13) observed during dining.Findings include:R13's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R13 had severe cognitive impairment, did not exhibit any disruptive verbal behaviors, was dependent with mobility using a wheelchair, preferred to have snacks between meals, and required substantial/maximal assistance with eating. R13's diagnoses included neurocognitive disorder with Lewy bodies (progressive dementia characterized by abnormal protein deposits in the brain), anxiety, unspecified severe protein-calorie malnutrition, and prediabetes.R13's care plan dated 12/31/26, indicated R13 sometimes understood, was usually understood, instructed staff to anticipate R13's needs and provide needed services. The care plan further indicated R13 was at risk for behaviors like yelling out due to her diagnoses, and instructed staff to offer distractions such as snack 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 Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-25 · 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 document review the facility failed to ensure the manufacturer's recommended sling size was used for 1 of 1 resident (R132) reviewed for mechanical lift transfers. Findings include:R132's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R132 had moderately impaired cognition and was dependent on staff assistance for bed mobility and transfers. Diagnoses included dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) following a stroke and non-Alzheimer's dementia. R132 had no falls since the last assessment.R132's significant change Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 11/11/25, identified falls were triggered due to a history of falls. There was no documentation for self-transfers. Staff assisted with all transfers since R132 was unable to walk or stand independently.R132's mobility care plan intervention dated 1/13/26, identified dependence on two staff using a full body mechanical lift with medium size body sling. R132's Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE], identified non-weight bearing…

  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 · D2026-02-25 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolated
  Ensure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
  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 medication administration error rate of less than 5 percent (%). Two medication errors occurred out of 26 opportunities resulting in a 7.69% medication error rate for 1 of 6 residents (R150) observed during medication administration. Findings include:R150's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R150 had moderate cognitive impairment, had occasional pain and received scheduled as well as PRN (as needed) pain medication. R150's diagnoses included type 2 diabetes with polyneuropathy (condition affecting nerves in multiple areas causing numbness and pain), dementia, and anxiety. R150's care plan dated 12/15/25, indicated pain and instructed staff to use both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. R150's provider orders dated 12/11/25, indicated:-Lidocaine External Patch 4% (medicated adhesive patch to provide pain relief directly a specific area of the skin-releasing medication over a period of…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-11-18 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolated
  Ensure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
  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 identify the indication for the administration of narcotic medications and failed to ensure non-pharmacological interventions were attempted/offered and documented prior to the administration of as needed (PRN) narcotic medications for 2 of 3 residents (R2, R3) reviewed for pain. Findings include: R2's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated severely impaired cognition with diagnoses including stroke and dementia. The MDS identified R2 had received scheduled pain medication but no PRN pain medication.R2's pain assessment dated [DATE] indicated R2 was unable to rate his pain and was not exhibiting any signs or symptoms of pain. R2 had not received any PRN pain medication. No non-medication interventions used to manage pain that have been effective were listed. R2's care plan dated 10/25/25 had a focus of alteration in/potential for alteration in comfort related to disease progression with interventions including but not limited to:…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-01-16 · 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to use proper infection control practices to prevent and/or mitigate the risk of a potential infection outbreak for 3 of 12 residents (R42, R57, R118) observed for respiratory precautions, and 1 of 4 residents (R138) observed for enhanced barrier precautions. Findings include: PPE FOR COVID-19 R42's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 10/23/24, indicated R42 had severe cognitive impairment, was dependent on staff for most activities of daily living (ADL's) and required supervision or touching assistance with eating. R42's physician order dated 1/7/25, indicated R42 had an active COVID-19 infection in the contagious stage and required transmission-based precautions for ten days. R57's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R57 had severe cognitive impairment, required substantial and/or maximal assistance, and was dependent on staff for ADLs. R57's progress note on 1/4/25 at 3:26 p.m., indicated R57 tested positive for COVID and would be 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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-16 · 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 facial hair was removed for 1 of 1 resident (R14) reviewed for dignity related to unwanted facial hair. Findings include: R14's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R14 had severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses of peripheral vascular disease (reduced circulation of blood to a body part, such as arms or legs, due to a narrowed or blocked blood vessel), diabetes mellitus, arthritis, dementia, anxiety disorder, depression, and psychotic disorder. R14 had delusions and no behaviors or rejection of cares. R14 required substantial and/or maximal assistance for personal hygiene, which included combing hair, shaving, washing and/or drying face. R14's care plan intervention dated 11/1/22, indicated R14 preferred to be shaved when hair present as needed. R14's care plan did not indicate refusals of care. During observation on 1/13/25 at 1:34 p.m., R14 laid in bed and hair on chin was observed. During interview 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-01-16 · tag F0554 — isolated
  Allow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
  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 documentation review, the facility failed to comprehensively assess for safety to determine if self-administration of medication was appropriate for 1 of 2 residents (R77) reviewed for self-administration of medication (SAM). Findings include: R77's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated she had intact cognition and diagnoses of heart failure, high blood pressure, multiple sclerosis (a chronic disease that damages the central nervous system, including the brain, spinal cord, and optic nerves), and muscle weakness. R77's medication administration record (MAR) dated 1/14/25, reflected the following administered medications: - ascorbic acid oral tablet, Give 1000 mg by mouth one time a day for health care maintenance, dated 8/26/24. - cholecalciferol oral tablet, Give 4000 unit by mouth one time a day for Vitamin D def [sic], dated 10/10/23. - docusate sodium oral tablet, Give 100 mg one time a day for constipation, date 9/28/23. - furosemide oral tablet, Give…

  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 · D2025-01-16 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
  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 food preferences were honored for 1 of 2 residents (R76) reviewed for food choices. Findings include: R76's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated he had intact cognition and did not have weight loss or gain of during the lookback period. The MDS identified his diagnoses of high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, and Parkinson's disease (a chronic brain condition that causes movement problems, such as stiffness and tremors). R76's Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 12/5/24, triggered for nutritional status and identified his potential nutritional problem. The CAA indicated the objective was to avoid complications and minimize risks and guided staff to the care plan. The CAA lacked resident-specific documentation regarding efforts to avoid complications and minimize his risks. R76's care plan revised on 12/5/24, identified his potential nutritional problem and guided staff to provide his diabetic diet as…

  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 before2025-01-16 · 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 interview and document review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive and resident-specific care plan for 1 of 1 residents (R76) reviewed for urinary tract infections. Findings include: R76's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated he had intact cognition, was occasionally incontinent of urine and used an external catheter. The MDS identified his diagnoses of high blood pressure, benign prostatic hyperplasic (BPH, a condition that causes the prostate gland the enlarge), diabetes, Parkinson's disease (a chronic brain condition that causes movement problems, such as stiffness and tremors), and a history of urinary tract infections (UTIs). R76's Care Area Assessment (CAA) for urinary incontinence and indwelling catheter dated 12/5/24, identified he had a history of chronic UTIs and was followed closely by Urology and indicated his urinary incontinence would be addressed in his care plan. R76's care plan, revised 10/4/23, lacked documentation pertaining to his history of…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-01-16 · 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 observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to identify pressure injury, and/or provide preventive care consistent with care planned interventions for residents at risk for pressure injuries for 2 of 5 residents (R28, R45) reviewed for pressure ulcers. Findings include: Pressure ulcer or pressure injury (PU/PI) refers to localized damage to the skin and/or underlying soft tissue usually over a bony prominence or related to a medical or other device. A pressure injury looks like intact skin and may be painful. A pressure ulcer will look like an open area, the appearance of which will vary depending on the stage and may be painful. The injury occurs because of intense and/or prolonged pressure or pressure in combination with shear. Soft tissue damage related to pressure and shear may also be affected by skin temperature and moisture, nutrition, perfusion, co-morbidities and condition of the soft tissue. R28's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated severe cognitive…

  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

“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

$55,043 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $55,043 — penalty dated 2024-06-04

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.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 54 rows in the source record cover these 31 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

1 organizational owner 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 $85K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

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