Aspire Senior Living Carthage
1901 Buena Vista Avenue, Carthage, MO 64836 · For profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (417) 358-1937 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (21) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 21.4% | 18.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.8% | 5.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.1% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.8% | 18.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.1% | 4.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 23.5% | 17.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 24.2% | 25.6% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 90.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.1% | 4.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.3% | 17.8% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.7% | 23.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 2.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.9% | 63.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 5.7% | 26.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.8% | 13.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.29 | 2.11 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.83 | 2.33 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
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.
37.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 82 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 73.2% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 56 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 0.15 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 12% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 37.2%CMS range 26.2–45.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.4%CMS range 8.0–15.7 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 73.2% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 66.1% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 73.2% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.8%CMS range 3.9–13.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.93 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 111.9 residents a day — about 93% 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 2.64 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.23 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.97 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 2.27 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.79 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.26 to 0.16 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
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.
21 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 11 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-29 · tag F0691 — failed to provide colostomy / ostomy care — isolatedProvide appropriate colostomy, urostomy, or ileostomy care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Deficiency Text Not Available
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-26 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to provide care per standards of practice when staff failed to obtain physician orders to monitor, flush, and obtain blood from an implanted vascular access port (small device placed under the skin, usually in the chest, to provide long term access to a vein) and failed to include the implanted vascular access port on the resident care plan for one resident (Resident # 1). The facility census was 111.Review of the facility policy titled admission Orders, undated, showed the following:-The physician must provide written and/or verbal orders for the resident's immediate care and needs;-The orders should allow facility staff to provide essential care to the resident consistent with the resident's mental and physical status on admission.Review of the facility policy titled Accessing and De-accessing an Implanted Vascular Access Port, undated, showed the following:-It is the policy of the facility to ensure that implanted vascular access ports are accessed 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-26 · tag F0691 — failed to provide colostomy / ostomy care — isolatedProvide appropriate colostomy, urostomy, or ileostomy care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure colostomy (surgical procedure that brings one end of the large intestine out through the abdominal wall) site care was provided per standards of practice when staff failed to obtain physician orders for the routine colostomy care/changes, failed to routinely assess the colostomy site, failed to document resident removed of the colostomy bag, and failed to document care of the colostomy for one resident (Resident # 1). Staff also failed to routinely assess the colostomy site and failed to document monitoring colostomy self-care for one resident (Resident # 2). The facility census was 111. Review of a facility policy titled Ostomy (surgical opening in an organ of the body) Care, dated October 2025, showed the following:-It is the policy of the facility to ensure residents who require ostomy services receive care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-12-12 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide 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 record review, the facility failed to provide care per standards of practice when staff failed to consistently assess and document complete, thorough weekly skin assessments and failed care plan related to skin for three residents (Resident #3, Resident #2, and Resident #4) and when staff applied treatment to skin conditions without physician's orders for two residents (Resident #3 and #4). A sample of six residents were reviewed in a facility with a census of 111. Review of the facility's policy titled Skin Assessment, dated 2024, showed the following:-It is the policy to perform a full body skin assessment as part of the systematic approach to pressure injury prevention and management;-A full body, or head to toe, skin assessment will be conducted by a licensed or registered nurse (RN) upon admission/re-admission, daily for three days, and weekly thereafter. The assessment may also be performed after a change of condition or after any newly identified pressure…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-12 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely 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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of possible abuse were reported immediately to management and within two hours to the State Survey Agency (Department of Health and Senior Services - DHSS) when staff received allegations of possible abuse involving one resident (Resident #1) and failed to report the allegation in a timely fashion. The facility census was 110.Review of the facility's policy titled Abuse and Neglect, revised 04/16/24, showed the following:-The facility is committed to facilitate efforts to protect residents from abuse neglect, misappropriation of residents' property and exploitation;-In response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, the facility shall ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of residence property, are reported immediately, but not later than two hours after the allegations is made, if the events that caused the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury,…
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.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-03-31 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards of practice and in a manner to prevent possible contamination when the facility staff failed to air dry dishes before stacking; failed to wear hair restraints appropriately; failed to maintain a proper air gap to prevent possible back flow; failed to maintain the ice machine and scoop; and failed to maintain food contact surfaces and nonfood contact surfaces, including the stove/oven, in a manner that would prevent possible contamination of food. These concerns had the potential of affecting any of the residents. The facility census was 111. 1. Review of the 2022 Food Code, issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), showed the following information: -After cleaning and sanitizing, equipment and utensils shall be air-dried or used after adequate draining before contact with food; -Items must be allowed to drain and to air-dry before being stacked or stored. Stacking wet items such as pans prevents them from drying 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.
- Potential for harm · F2025-03-31 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — widespreadMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed provide a sanitary environment in the kitchen when staff failed to ensure all areas in the kitchen were kept clean. This could have the potential to affect all of the residents. The facility had a census of 111. Review of the 2022 Food Code, issued by the FDA, showed the following information: -The objective of cleaning focuses on the need to remove organic matter from food contact surfaces so that sanitization can occur and to remove soil from nonfood contact surfaces so that pathogenic microorganisms will not be allowed to accumulate and insects and rodents will not be attracted; -The presence of food debris or dirt on nonfood contact surfaces may provide a suitable environment for the growth of microorganisms which employees may inadvertently transfer to food. If these areas are not kept clean, they may also provide harborage for insects, rodents, and other pests Review of the facility policy titled Cleaning Schedules, dated 08/10/18, showed to prevent the spread of bacteria that may cause food borne…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2025-03-31 · tag F0700 — patternTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete a risk/benefit review. document alternatives attempted prior to bed rail use, and failed to obtain informed consent prior to the use of bed side rails for six residents (Residents #266, #26, #53, #41 #28, and #59); failed to address and/or timely address the use of bed side rails in the residents' care plans for three residents (Resident # 266, #28, and #59); failed to conduct an initial safety gap check prior to side rail use for three residents (Residents #41, #28, and #59); and failed to ensure staff conducted periodic safety rechecks of all bed rails in use. The facility census was 111. Review of the facility policy titled Resident Beds and Bed Safety Rails Program, dated 10/28/19, showed the following: -The scope was to maintain beds and perform bed safety rails audits; -Preventative maintenance should be conducted on all beds and bed safety rails annually; -Bed Safety Rails Audit should be performed when it is determined…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-31 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a comfortable and homelike environment for one resident (Resident #52), whose room contained multiple areas of wall, door, and ceiling damage. A sample of 21 residents was reviewed. The facility census was 111. Review of a facility policy entitled Repair Requisition (TELs (electronic application) Work Order System), dated 07/06/15, showed the following: -Purpose was to assist in the prompt repair of equipment, or facility plant features, that may be broken or have failed; -TELs Work Order Requests are used as a communication tool and are not intended to be a permanent record of equipment service; -Requests for repairs to equipment, or the building, should be communicated via the TELs Work Order System to the maintenance department, using the TELs app on each computer. The Maintenance supervisor should check Work Order requests each day and plan to work accordingly; -Once repairs are complete, the Maintenance Supervisor should record the repair on the TELs Work Order System as appropriate. 1. Review 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-31 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide respiratory care per standards of practice when staff failed to obtain and document physician orders for the use of supplemental oxygen for one resident (Resident #53) of four sampled residents. The facility census was 111. Review of the facility's policy titled Advanced Care Procedures: Oxygen Administration, dated 12/08/05, showed the following: -Oxygen should be administered under the orders of the attending physician, except in the case of an emergency. In an emergency, oxygen may be administered without physician's order; however, the order should be obtained immediately after the crisis is under control; -Obtain physician's orders for the rate of flow and route of administration of oxygen (i.e., by tank, concentrator, nasal cannula, mask, etc.). 1. Review of Resident #53's face sheet showed the following information: -admission date of 02/10/25; -Diagnoses included acute and chronic respiratory failure with excess carbon dioxide (CO2) in the bloodstream, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease…
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.
Show the remaining 11 citations
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-10-26 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 observations,interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was properly stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety as required for 115 census residents who received meals from the facility kitchen. These failures had the potential to lead to food-borne illness among all facility residents. Review of the Dietary Service Manual, dated 08/10/18, showed the following: -Kitchens and dining areas should be kept clean, free from litter, and rubbish, and protected from rodents, roaches, flies, and other insects; -Utensils, counters, shelves, and equipment should be kept clean, maintained in good repair, and should be free from breaks, corrosion, open seams, cracks, and chipped areas; - Items in storage rooms should not be stored within 18 inches of sprinkler heads, and should be kept at least 6 inches from the floor; -Open food items should be covered, labeled, and dated. Opened dry goods should be kept in tightly sealed containers. 1. Observations during the tour of the kitchen on 10/23/23, at…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-26 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to keep one out of six medication carts secured; failed to remove expired calibration solution from one out of the two medication rooms; and failed to removed two expired covid tests. These failures had the potential for resident medications to be tampered with, glucometers to be calibrated inaccurately, and for expired covid tests and medications which may be less effective be used. The facility census was 115. 1. Review of the Storage and Expiration of Medication, Biological, Syringes, and Needles policy, with a revision date of 10/31/16, showed the facility should ensure that all medications and biologicals are securely stored in a locked cabinet/cart or a locked medication room that is inaccessible by residents or visitors. During observations on 10/25/23, from 11:09 A.M. to 11:20 A.M., a medication cart sitting between the 100 and 200 halls by the nurses' station was unlocked and unattended. At 11:09 AM, this surveyor opened a drawer that contained medication, then closed the drawer, and continued 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-26 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS - a federally mandated assessment completed by facility staff) reflective of the resident's status at the time of the assessment for one resident (Resident #16) out of a total sample of 34 residents. The facility census was 115. 1. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS)'s RAI 3.0 Manual, revised October 2023, showed in the coding instructions for wandering that the frequency of the behavior during the seven day look back period should be coded. Review of the Resident's #16's admission Record, found in the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), showed the following: -admission date of 01/18/10; -Diagnoses included dementia, depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia (a chronic brain disorder - symptoms can include delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech, trouble with thinking and lack of motivation). Review of the resident's quarterly MDS assessment located in the MDS tab in the EMR, with an assessment reference…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-26 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Level 1 Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) was completed for one resident (Resident #15) of one sampled resident reviewed for PASARR failure to complete a Level 1 screen which prevents the completion of an in-depth evaluation (Level II PASRR) and possible identification of appropriate services. The facility census was 115. Review of the Preadmission Screening Resident Review policy, revised on 06/09, showed the following: -The process for PASRR included a Level I and/or Level II would be added to the admission checklist as one of the documents required prior to or at the time of admission; -The original documents for Level I and/or Level II determination would be placed in the medical chart behind the social services tab and a copy would also be placed in the residents financial file in the business office; -The intent of a preadmission screening was to ensure that all individuals with a diagnosis of mental illness had appropriate placement in a facility, their medical needs outweigh their mental…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-26 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for one resident (Resident #21) out of a total sample of 32 residents when the resident had a physician order for oxygen use and the facility failed to develop a care plan related to oxygen usage. The facility census was 115. Review of the Nursing Management Manual Policy, effective 08/15/18, under the Quality of Life section with a Person Centered Care Plan policy title, showed the following: -The purpose of a person-centered plans of care was to care approaches and goals specific to the resident's needs; -Comprehensive plan of care should be reviewed quarterly and the Minimum Data Set (MDS - a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff) Coordinator should ensure the care plan interventions were entered outside of routine care which would provide the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) with individualized information needed to meet the residents care needs; -The care plan team…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-26 · tag F0675 — failed to support quality of life — isolatedHonor each resident's preferences, choices, values and beliefs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure two residents (Residents #40 and #59) out of two residents observed out of a sample of 32 residents were positioned appropriately at the dining table to ensure the residents could access their food without difficulty and at a comfortable position. This had the potential for the residents to have nutritional issues and a negative dining experience. The facility census was 115. Review showed the facility did not provide a policy related to dining and positioning. 1. Review of Resident #40's facility provided quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - a federally mandated assessment tool completed by facility staff) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/15/23, showed the following: -admission date of 05/29/21; -Cognition was moderately impaired, made poor decisions, and supervision was required; -Resident required limited assistance with one person assist with eating. 2. Review of Resident #59's facility provided quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 07/27/23, showed the following: -admission date of 05/08/21;…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2020-03-13 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — patternConduct 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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to review and update the comprehensive facility assessment annually, in accordance with all applicable Federal requirements. Failure to review and update the comprehensive facility assessment annually could delay the services needed to care for the residents in day-to-day operations and in emergencies. This failure could affect all facility occupants. The facility census was 79. Record review of the facility's assessment policy, undated, showed the following: -It is the policy of this facility that it must conduct and document an individualized facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for its residents competently during both day-to-day operations and emergencies. -The facility assessment will be conducted at the facility level and may incorporate input from governing body/ownership. -The facility will review and update the facility assessment annually and as necessary whenever there is, or the facility plans for, any change that would require a substantial modification to any part of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2020-03-13 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — patternMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a switch that would activate the resident call light system in four common-use restrooms. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents and visitors who used the restrooms and required staff assistance. The facility had a census of 79. 1. Observation on 3/13/20, beginning at 9:00 A.M., showed two unsecured common-use restroom doors, located in the therapy hall, in which residents could access. Staff attached the restroom door key to the outside of each door. Neither restroom had a call light activation switch. 2. Observation on 3/13/20, at 11:30 A.M., showed two unsecured common-use restroom doors, located in the main lobby, in which residents could access. Staff attached the restrooms door key to the outside of each door. Neither restroom had a call light activation switch. 3. During an interview on 3/13/20, at 1:00 P.M., the maintenance supervisor said he did not know the restrooms needed a call light activation switch.
- Potential for harm · D2020-03-13 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to check the Nurse Aide (NA) registry prior to hire to ensure new employees did not have a Federal Indicator (a registry that indicated a list of individuals who had a previous incident involving abuse, neglect, or misappropriation of property that would prevent the employee from working in a certified long-term are facility) for one (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A) out of five sampled employees, The facility census was 79. 1. Record review of LPN A's personnel file showed the following: -Hired on 6/4/19; -No documentation the facility completed the NA registry check prior to or upon hire for the employee. During an interview on 3/13/20 at 11:35 A.M., Financial Specialist Assistant B said the following: -LPN A previously worked at the facility from 8/29/17 to 9/1/17. Staff checked NA Registry at that time. -He/she checked LPN A's license prior to his/her most recent hire date, but he/she did not check the NA Registry. During an interview on 3/13/20 at 1:15 P.M., the Administrator said staff should check NA registry on all…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2020-03-13 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure all residents were free from significant medication errors when staff administered insulin (medication used to help control blood sugar levels) without priming the insulin pen, per standards of practice, prior to administration for one resident (Resident #22). The facility census was 79. Record review of the facility's policy, titled Medication Administration Procedures, Subcutaneous (just under the skin) Injection with Novolog Flexpen, dated 5/2012, showed the following: -Give the airshot before each injection: Small amounts of air may collect in the needle and insulin reservoir during normal use. To avoid injecting air and to ensure proper dosing follow the steps described below. -Hold the syringe with the needle pointing up and tap the syringe gently so any air bubbles collect in the top of the reservoir; -Dial 2 units; -Holding the syringe with the needle pointing up, tap the insulin reservoir a few times. Still with the needle…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2020-03-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff appropriately documented the results of the yearly tuberculosis (TB) (an infectious disease that generally affects the lungs, but can also affect other parts of the body) skin test for two residents (Resident #9 and #22) and failed to complete the yearly TB signs and symptoms form for one resident (Resident #58) in a selected sample of 18 residents. The facility's census was 79. General requirements for TB testing for residents in Long Term Care Facilities, 19 CSR 20-20.100, reads as follows: -Long-term care facilities shall screen their residents for tuberculosis using the Mantoux method purified protein derivative (PPD) five tuberculin unit test. Each facility shall be responsible for ensuring all test results are completed and documentation is maintained for all residents; -Within one month prior to or one week after admission, all residents new to long-term care are required to have the initial test of a Mantoux PPD (tuberculin…
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.
“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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to ASPIRE SENIOR LIVING — 16 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 1.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 2.5 | +2.5 vs chain |
The other 15 homes this chain runs (chain average 1.9★, per CMS)
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
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BRODY, MICHAEL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 10/01/2025 |
| BROWN, BARBARA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 10/01/2025 |
| BROWN, DANIEL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2025 |
| HERO HEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/01/2025 |
| BROWN, MICHELE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2025 |
| EICKHOFF, PAMELA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2025 |
| LEIPHAM, MICHELLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2025 |
| STADTMUELLER, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2025 |
| SWEETEN, ROBERT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 9 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.
About 75% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. 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 MO
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Missouri Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 265320. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-31, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.