Stonebridge Desoto

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.

39.4% 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 40 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 60.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 20 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 0.22 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 26% 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 56 beds and averages 51.3 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.87 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.59 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.83 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.48 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.02 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.70 to 0.31 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 68% is well above the national median of 45%.

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

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are 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.

25 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 14 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · G2025-07-24 · 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

  Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the safety of one resident (Resident #1) out of three sampled residents when staff failed to place a fall mat next to the resident's bed as directed by the care plan. The resident fell out of bed onto the floor resulting in injury. The facility census was 52. The administration was notified on 07/24/25 of the Past Non-Compliance which occurred on 07/18/25. On 07/18/25, upon notification, the facility administration started an investigation and notified the Department of Health and Senior Services of the fall which resulted in a fracture. The non-compliance was corrected on 07/18/25, as the facility in-serviced all staff on the facility's policy and procedures on Falls and Fall Risk, Managing, High Fall Risk Patient Interventions, and on the Abuse and Neglect Policy. Review of the facility policy titled, Falls and Fall Risk, Managing, revised on December 2019, showed:The staff, with the input of the Attending Physician, will identify appropriate interventions to reduce the risk of falls. If a systematic evaluation 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-13 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
  Provide 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order for bilevel positive airway pressure (BIPAP - a noninvasive ventilation device that helps people breathe by delivering pressurized air into the airways) included settings. This affected one resident (Resident #32) out of one sampled resident. The facility's census was 46. Review of the facility's policy titled, CPAP/BiPAP Support, dated March 2015, showed: - Review the physician's order to determine the oxygen concentration and flow, and the PEEP pressure for the machine. Review of Resident #32's medical record showed: - admission date of 12/06/22; - Diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD - a group of lung diseases that causes restricted airflow and breathing problems), obstructive sleep apnea (a sleep disorder that occurs when the upper airway becomes blocked during sleep), type 2 diabetes (a long-term condition in which the body has trouble controlling blood sugar and using it for energy), diastolic heart failure (a condition where the heart muscle becomes stiff…

  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 before2025-03-13 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolated
  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 record review, the facility failed to store and distribute food under sanitary conditions, increasing the risk of cross-contamination and food-borne illness. This had the potential to affect all residents. The facility's census was 46. Review of the facility's policy titled, Sanitization, dated October 2008, showed: - The food service area shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner; - All kitchens, kitchen areas, and dining areas shall be kept clean, free from litter and rubbish and protected from rodents, roaches, flies and other insects; - All utensils, counters, shelves and equipment shall be kept clean, maintained in good repair and shall be free from breaks, corrosions, open seams, and cracks, and chipped areas that may affect their use or proper cleaning. Seals, hinges, and fasteners will be kept in good repair; - If a sink is used for washing utensils, cooking equipment, or dishes, and also used to wash produce or thaw food, it will be cleaned between uses with an approved cleaning and sanitizing agent; - High-Temperature…

  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 · Dcited before2025-03-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to maintain appropriate infection control practices by not following enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for one resident (Resident #20) out of three sampled residents and by not performing proper hand hygiene and glove changing techniques during incontinent care, transfer, and wound care for three residents (Resident #20, #22 and #23) out of 16 sampled residents. The facility's census was 46. Review of the facility's policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions, last updated 04/04/24, showed: - All staff receive training on enhanced barrier precautions upon hire and at least annually and expected to comply with all designated precautions; - All staff receive training on high-risk activities and common organisms that require enhanced barrier precautions; - The Infection Preventionist will incorporate periodic monitoring and assessment of adherence to determine the need for additional training and education; - High-contact resident care…

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

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-02-09 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
  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 record review, the facility failed to store and distribute food under sanitary conditions, increasing the risk of cross-contamination and food-borne illness. These practices affected all residents. The facility census was 46. Review of the facility's Food Receiving and Storage policy, revised July 2014, showed: - Foods shall be received and stored in a manner that complies with safe food handling practices; - All foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer will be covered, labeled, and dated (use by date). 1. Observation on 02/06/24 at 10:46 A.M. of the reach-in cooler showed: - One large container of Ott's Famous dressing with no opened date and no expiration date; - One large container of ranch dressing, labeled as Italian dressing, with no opened date and no expiration date; - One large container of maraschino cherries with no opened date. 2. Observation on 02/06/24 at 10:50 A.M. of a shipment of hamburger buns showed: - A large box containing individual packages of hamburger buns with a received date of 02/05/24 and a baked on date 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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-02-09 · tag F0623 — isolated
  Provide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident and/or the resident's representative in writing of a facility-initiated transfer when one resident (Resident #44) out of one sampled resident transferred to the hospital. The facility's census was 46. 1. Review of Resident #44's medical record showed: - Resident transferred to the hospital for medical evaluation on 01/31/24 and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]; - No documentation of written notification to the resident and/or the resident's representative of the resident's transfer to the hospital on [DATE]. During an interview on 02/09/24 at 12:15 P.M., the Administrator said she would expect the resident and/or the resident's representative to receive a transfer notification in writing when a resident is transferred to the hospital. The facility did not provide a policy regarding transfers.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-02-09 · tag F0625 — isolated
  Notify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
  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 notify the resident and/or the resident's representative in writing of the facility's bed hold policy when one resident (Resident #44) out of one sampled resident transferred to the hospital. The facility's census was 46. Review of the facility's policy, Bed Hold Notice Prior to Transfer, revised October 2017, showed: - In the event of a resident transfer to the hospital or the resident goes on therapeutic leave, the facility will provide written information to the resident and/or the resident representative regarding the bed hold; - The notice will be provided prior to leave, if possible. In the event the notice is not provided prior to leave due to unforeseen circumstances, the notice will be provided within the requirements for such notice; - Attempts at delivery of the bed hold notice will be documented; - The following information will be given to the resident and/or resident's representative: the duration of the state bed hold, if any, during…

  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 · D2024-02-09 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to document an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated assessment completed by the facility) assessment for two residents (Resident #11 and Resident #26) out of 12 sampled residents. The facility census was 46. Review of the facility's Certifying Accuracy of the Resident Assessment Policy showed: - All personnel who complete any portion of the Resident Assessment (MDS) must sign and certify the accuracy of that portion of the assessment; - Any individual who willfully and knowingly certifies (or causes another individual to certify) a material and false statement in a resident assessment is subject to disciplinary action and such incident must be promptly reported to the Administrator. 1. Review of Resident #11's medical record showed: - admission date of 09/07/2022; - Diagnoses of Parkinson's disease (a disorder of the central nervous system that affects movement, often including tremors), visual loss-both eyes, and dysphagia (difficulty…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-09 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered comprehensive care plan to meet the individual needs for one resident (Resident #11) out of 12 sampled residents. The facility census was 46. Review of the facility's Life Enrichment Policy Program Policy, dated October 2017, showed: - Each resident's interests and needs will be assessed on a routine basis. Included in this assessment will be Minimum Data Set (MDS - a mandatory assessment completed by the facility) and Care Plan; - Activities will be designed with the intent to enhance the resident's sense of well being; promote or enhance emotional health; promote self esteem, dignity, pleasure, comfort, education, creativity, success and independence; - Space and equipment necessary are provided to ensure the resident's care plan is followed; - Life Enrichment Assessments, Participation reviews, and Life Enrichment Care plans will be completed on admission, quarterly, at the time a resident experiences significant change, and if the Life Enrichment Director notes an inherent trend…

  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 · D2024-02-09 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
  Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
  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 update and revise a comprehensive care plan to meet the individual needs for one resident (Resident #11) out of 12 sampled residents. The facility census was 46. Review of the facility's Comprehensive Care Plans Policy, dated September 2022, showed: - It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment; - The care planning process will include an assessment of the resident's strengths and needs; - The comprehensive care plan will be reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team (a group of professionals from different disciplines that know the resident's needs) after each comprehensive (no more than 366 days from prior comprehensive assessment) 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 Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-02-09 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
  Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
  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 resident care for activities of daily living (ADLs) when residents did not receive scheduled showers and preferences were not acknowledged for three residents (Resident #10, #30, and #46) out of 12 sampled residents. The facility census was 46. The facility's policy did not address shower frequency. 1. Review of Resident #10's medical record showed: - admission date of 04/25/23; - Diagnoses of major depressive disorder (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest in activities, causing significant impairment in daily life), mild cognitive impairment, lack of coordination, unsteadiness on feet, weakness, high blood pressure, and heart failure. Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated assessment completed by the facility), dated 01/18/24, showed: - Moderately impaired cognition; - Moderate assistance for upper body dressing and personal hygiene; - Dependent…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Fines & penalties

$6,368 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $6,368 — penalty dated 2025-07-24

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 STONEBRIDGE SENIOR LIVING — 12 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 22 rows in the source record cover these 13 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

6 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 $804K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. 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