Zumbrota Care 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.

47.1% 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 36 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 65.6% 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 32 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 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 22% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 42 beds and averages 33.8 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.66 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.48 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.85 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 3.88 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.68 to 0.99 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as 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 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.

24 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 13 are one tap away and print in full.

• Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-05-27 · 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 maintain a functioning Wanderguard system and failed to comprehensively assess risk for elopement and appropriate interventions, resulting in elopement for 2 of 7 residents (R1, R2). R1's elopement occurred due to the failure of the Wanderguard system, which did not sound an alarm when R1 exited the building. R2's elopements occurred due to R2's risk of elopement was not accurately comprehensively assessed leading to insufficient supervision and lack of intervention, followed by a failure of the Wanderguard system. The facility's failures resulted in an immediate jeopardy (IJ). The immediate jeopardy began on 5/8/25, when R1 successfully eloped from the building without the alarm sounding and was found by staff outside, unharmed, approximately 15 minutes later, the facility failed to identify malfunctioning alarm system which resulted in subsequent elopements by R2. The administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), nurse manager, and social…

  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 before2025-12-02 · 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 comprehensively assess sling/harness sizes according to manufacturer's instructions to ensure safe transfers for 2 of 2 residents (R1 and R4) who utilized mechanical lifts sit to stand lift and full body mechanical lifts for transfers. Findings include: R1's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1's cognition was intact, with diagnoses of hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body) following a cerebral infarction (stroke), unspecified dementia, diabetes, history of falling, and seizure disorder. Further indicated an impairment in range of motion (ROM) on one side of upper and lower extremities and was dependent with transfers with use of mechanical lift.R1's care plan revised 3/28/25, identified a focus of activities of daily living (ADL)'s: R1 had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to hemiplegia. Goal revised 10/21/25, will maintain current level…

  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 before2025-11-26 · 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 comprehensively assess each fall to identify and analyze causal factors for potential root cause in order to determine individualized interventions to prevent or decrease the risk for future falls for 1 of 3 residents (R2) reviewed for falls.Findings include: R2's Fall Risk Evaluation dated 6/12/25, identified R2 had 1-2 falls in the past 3 months, had intermittent confusion, was ambulatory and continent. R2 had balance problem while standing and walking and required the use of assistive devices. R2 currently takes 3-4 high risk medications. R2 was at risk for falls, with a goal to be free of falls. Interventions: assist R2 with ambulation and transfers utilizing therapy recommendations, determine ability to transfer, and if fall occurs alert provider.R2's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R2's cognition was intact, and had diagnoses of Lewy body dementia (a progressive condition characterized by dementia,…

  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 · D2025-11-26 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
  Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
  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 develop an individualized toileting program to maintain or improve bowel/bladder continence for 1 of 3 residents (R2) reviewed for falls. Findings includeR2's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R2's cognition was intact, and had diagnoses of Lewy body dementia (a progressive condition characterized by dementia, parkinsonism, and fluctuations in attention and alertness, along with other symptoms like hallucinations and problems with movement), non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety and diabetes. R2 required extensive assist of 1 person for transfers, toileting and toileting hygiene and was frequently incontinent of bladder and occasionally incontinent of bowel.In review of R2's record there was no indication a comprehensive bowel and bladder assessment was completed. R2's care plan revised 6/5/25, identified a focus with activities of daily living (ADL) performance deficit related to disease process. Goal revised 8/5/25,…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-08-07 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure food stored in the refrigerators were labeled and dated appropriately. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 35 residents who received food from the refrigerators. Findings include: During an initial kitchen tour on 8/5/25 at 10:15 a.m., the large walk-in refrigerator contained an undated plastic container 1/2 full of soup. The refrigerator in the kitchen prep area contained an undated 3/4 full plastic container of potato salad and an undated plastic container 1/4 full of diced ham cubes. [NAME] (C)-A was unaware how old the soup was. C-A was unavailable to confirm date of potato salad or ham cubes. During a subsequent tour and interview on 8/7/25 at 11:01 a.m., dietary manager (DM)-A, indicated the soup, ham cubes, and potato salad had been removed from the refrigerators. Initial tour findings were discussed with DM-A. DM-A confirmed the soup, potato salad, and ham cubes were discarded on 8/6/25. DM-A stated leftovers are good for 48 hours and packaged foods are good 1 week after…

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

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-08-07 · tag F0582 — isolated
  Give residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to provide completed Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN CMS 1005) to 1 of 3 residents (R6) reviewed whose Medicare Part A coverage ended and then remained in the facility. Finding include: R6's census record indicated R6's payer source changed to private pay on 5/23/25 and R6 remained in the facility. R6's face sheet indicated R6's primary payer source is private pay with a secondary payer source as Medicare B. R6's Notice of Medicare Non-coverage (NOMNC) form indicated R6's last covered day was 5/22/25. The form indicated verbal consent was obtained from R6's responsible party on 5/19/25. The form was signed by the responsible party on 5/22/25. R6's medical record lacked evidence a SNFABN form had been provided to explain the estimated cost per day or provide rationale or explanation of the extended care services or items to be furnished, reduced, or terminated. During an interview on 8/06/25 at 1:48 p.m., R6's responsible party (FM)-A confirmed R6 was private pay. FM-A confirmed receipt and…

  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 · F2025-05-27 · tag F0836 — widespread
  Ensure the facility is licensed under applicable State and local law and operates and provides services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes, and 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 interview and document review, the facility failed to be in compliance with the supplemental nursing service agency (SNSA) requirements when the facility obtained nursing services from Swenswen Staffing, LLC (an SNSA) which was not registered with the commissioner as required. This had the potential to affect all 34 residents of the facility who received services from the supplemental staff. Findings include: Review of the SNSA website on [DATE], did not identify [NAME] Staffing, LLC as being registered with the commissioner as required. Email communication sent on [DATE] at 3:09 p.m., the staffing coordinator (SC) verified that Swenswen Staffing had provided staff in the facility in the past month. Review of the staffing schedules from [DATE] through [DATE], verified that Swenswen Staffing, LLC provided supplemental nursing staffing to the facility on the following days: -[DATE] nursing assistant 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. -[DATE] trained medication aide 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. -[DATE] trained 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.

  Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2025-05-27 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — widespread
  Conduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations (including nights and weekends) and emergencies.
  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 review and update the facility assessment to identify the facility's staffing plan for number of staff needed to ensure sufficient qualified staff were available to meet residents' needs. Findings include: In an email dated 5/19/25 at 5:50 p.m., the administrator noted overnight staff at the facility also worked at the assisted living facility. She noted this was an oversight if that isn't listed in the facility assessment and she would work on getting it corrected as soon as possible. In a subsequent email at 6:02 p.m., the administrator indicated there was a tracking log and provided an hours log of nursing home staff covering at the assisted living (AL) titled AL Filling In Time Book. Facility document titled AL Filling in Time Book was a log book with dated entries from 3/9/25 through 5/19/25. The log directed staff: Please write down times for the following: counting meds, rounds, any call lights/calls you get, falls, potential emergencies. Any…

  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 date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-05-27 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
  Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to report an elopement immediately to the administrator and to the State Agency within 2 hours for 1 of 1 resident (R1) who had eloped from the facility. Findings include: R1's face sheet dated 5/28/25, identified diagnoses of dementia (decline in mental ability and memory), delirium (a temporary state of mental confusion), and history of falling. R 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated 2/6 /25, identified R1 needed supervision for transfers and had severe cognitive impairment. R1's elopement care plan focus dated 2/6/25, identified R1 was at risk for elopement related to history of attempts to leave the facility unattended. Interventions of wandergard on left wrist, encourage to attend activities during highest wandering times (late afternoon/evening), and distract me from wandering by offering pleasant diversions, structured activities, food, conversation, television, and books. R1's progress note dated 5/8/25 at 7:45p.m., identified R1 had been observed wandering outside of the facility, R1 had a Wanderguard (a wander…

  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 · D2025-05-27 · 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 Minimum Data Set (MDS) was accurately coded to reflect wander/elopement alarm use for 1 of 2 residents (R1) reviewed for MDS accuracy. Findings include: R1's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], included section P0200: Alarms with alarm type wander/elopement alarm. The wander/elopement alarm was coded 0 indicating it was not used during the look-back period. R1's Elopement Risk assessment dated [DATE], indicated R1 had a Wanderguard placed on her right wrist. The analysis section noted for the assessment reference date (ARD) of 1/31/25 through 2/6/25, information was collected per review of documentation, observation, and interviews with direct care staff and resident. The analysis further noted, is at risk to wander or elope from facility. Wanderguard in place right wrist. Placement and proper function checked daily. R1's elopement care plan dated 8/28/24, identified she was an elopement risk. Intervention dated 8/28/24,…

  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 · F2024-05-30 · tag F0801 — widespread
  Employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure that in the absence of a full-time registered dietician (RD), the dietary manager (DM) was certified to oversee nutrition and food services. This had potential to affect all 32 residents who resided in the facility. Findings include: During an interview on 5/28/24 at 5:24 p.m., dietary manager (DM)-D stated she had been employed at the facility for about a year and was not a certified dietary manager. DM-D stated she had been talking about taking a course but didn't know which course to take. DM-D stated she had recently received her ServSafe certificate. During a telephone interview on 5/29/24 at 4:30 p.m., registered dietician (RD)-E stated she was aware DM-D did not meet the required credentials for dietary manager. RD-E stated she was at the facility every four to six weeks, otherwise worked online with staff to oversee dietary operations, conduct resident assessments and evaluations. RD-F stated she was aware the administrator had been encouraging DM-D to obtain the required credentials. During an interview…

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

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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

$28,321 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.

• $28,321 — penalty dated 2025-05-27
• Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-06-25 for 367 days

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 ST. FRANCIS HEALTH SERVICES — 14 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 110 rows in the source record cover these 42 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.

3 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 $206K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in MN