Cox Medical Centers Meyer Orthopedic And Surgical
3535 S National Ave, Springfield, MO 65807 · Non profit - Corporation · 28 certified beds · (417) 269-6650 Medicare only — no Medicaid
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | Not rated |
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 | Not rated |
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 5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.6% | 2.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.3% | 63.5% | 79.4% | better |
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.
67.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 155 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.
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 | 67.5%CMS range 59.2–73.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.9%CMS range 7.1–14.1 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 4.5%CMS range 2.5–8.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.81 | 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 28 beds and averages 4.8 residents a day — about 17% occupied, or roughly 23 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 10.00 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 8.27 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 0.00 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 10.43 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 9.83 on weekdays — about the same on weekends as weekdays. RN hours go from 7.67 to 9.84 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 54% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2026-04-23 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — widespreadConduct 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 develop and update the comprehensive facility assessment annually, in accordance with all applicable Federal requirements. Failure to develop 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 7. Review showed the facility did not provide a policy regarding the facility assessment. 1. Review showed the facility did not provide a facility assessment document. During an interview on 04/22/26, at 4:36 P.M., the Administrator said she thought the facility assessment was completed in May 2025 prior to her taking over as administrator. The assessment has not been located. The assessment should be completed annually. The Manager, Assistant Manager, and she were responsible for compliance.During an interview on 04/22/26 at 4:34 P.M., the manager said she was not familiar with the facility assessment and was not part of working on that. During an…
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 · E2026-04-23 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident environment remained as free from accident hazards as possible when the facility had water temperatures in excess of 120 degrees Fahrenheit ( F) in multiple resident rooms. The facility had a census of 7.Review of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) document Avoiding Tap Water Scalds, dated 03/2012, showed the following:-Most injuries involving tap water scalds are to the elderly and children under the age of five;-The CPSC urges all users to lower their water heaters to 120 degrees F;-Most adults will suffer third-degree burns if exposed to 150 degrees F water for two seconds;-Burns will also occur with a six-second exposure to 140 degrees F water or with a thirty second exposure to 130 degrees F water;-If the temperature is 120 degrees F, a five-minute exposure could result in third-degree burns Review of the facility water management plan, reviewed [DATE], showed the following:-The Central…
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 · E2026-04-23 · 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 assess risks of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation, failed to ensure that the beds dimensions were appropriate for each resident's size and weight, and failed to develop and implement interventions for the use of side rails on the residents' care plans for three residents (Resident #2, Resident #10, and Resident #11). The facility's census was 7.Review showed the facility did not provide a policy regarding the use of side rails. 1. Review of Resident #2's face sheet (admission data) showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the resident's consent to use half side rails showed the following:-The resident's responsible party gave verbal consent for the resident's use of the side rails;-Staff signed the document (after verbal consent) on 01/15/26. Review of the resident's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS-a federally mandated comprehensive assessment instrument completed by facility staff), dated 01/18/26,…
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 · D2026-04-23 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide dignity and respect to a resident during a wound care treatment when a staff member argued with one resident (Resident #4) who attempted to direct his/her own care. The facility census was 7.Review of the facility's policy titled Patient [NAME] of Rights, undated, showed the following:-The purpose of the Patient [NAME] of Rights is to inform patients and their family members of their rights and responsibilities;-The facility has defined patient rights and responsibilities to comply with the patient Self-Determination Act, (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (Hippa) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and other applicable regulations and organizational values;-Patients have the right to be treated with respect and dignity. Patients will be cared for in a safe environment that provides personal privacy, preserves dignity and contributes to a positive self-image;-Be involved in their care decisions including but not limited to participating in all decisions related to their health…
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 · D2026-04-23 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
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, observation and interview the facility failed to obtain specific flush orders and dressing change orders and failed to ensure the physician orders specified which tube staff should administer medications through and which tube staff should administer feedings though for one resident (Resident #5) who had a gastrostomy tube (G-tube - a surgically placed device providing direct access to the stomach for feeding, fluids, and medications when a person cannot eat enough by mouth) and a jejunostomy tube (J-tube - a long-term feeding tube surgically placed through the abdomen directly into the small intestine's middle section (jejunum) to deliver nutrients and medication). The facility's census was 7. Review of the facility's policy titled Tube Feeding, undated showed the following:-Special instructions and procedures outlined below will be followed by licensed nurses upon receipt of a provider order when tube feedings are administered to provide adequate nutrition and fluids to patients with a…
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 · D2026-04-23 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective and complete infection control program when staff failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP - an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO - microorganisms, predominantly bacteria that are resistant to one or more classes of antimicrobial agents. Although the names of certain MDROs describe resistance to only one agent, these pathogens are frequently resistant to most available antimicrobial agents) that employs targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities) for one resident (Resident #5) who had a gastrostomy tube (G-tube - a surgically placed device providing direct access to the stomach for feeding, fluids, and medications when a person cannot eat enough by mouth) and a jejunostomy tube (J-tube - a long-term feeding tube surgically placed through the abdomen directly into the small intestine's middle section (jejunum) to deliver nutrients and medication). A sample of three residents was…
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 · D2022-06-30 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 ensure a medication error rate of less than 5% when the facility staff made two errors out of 25 opportunities resulting in an error rate of 7.14% when staff failed to prime the insulin pens for one resident (Resident #3) during two medication pass observations. The facility census was 14. Record review of the Novolog Flexpen (name brand for insulin aspart injection - fast acting insulin) manufacturer's website, dated June 2021, instruction for use included the following: -Pull off the pen cap and wipe the rubber stopper with an alcohol swab; -Attach a new needle, push and twist the needle on until it is tight; -Check the flow in the needle with an air shot of two units. Tap the pen a few time to make any air bubbles collect at the top. Press the push button all the way in and make sure that a drop appears, if not change the needle and complete the process again; -Select the dose - Make sure the dose selector is set at 0. Turn the dose selector to select the number of units you need to inject; -Give 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 · D2022-06-30 · 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
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors when staff failed to prime insulin pens for one resident (Resident #3) during two medication pass observations. The facility had a census of 14. Record review of the Novolog Flexpen (name brand for insulin aspart injection - fast acting insulin) manufacturer's website, dated June 2021, instruction for use included the following: -Pull off the pen cap and wipe the rubber stopper with an alcohol swab; -Attach a new needle, push and twist the needle on until it is tight; -Check the flow in the needle with an air shot of two units. Tap the pen a few time to make any air bubbles collect at the top. Press the push button all the way in and make sure that a drop appears, if not change the needle and complete the process again; -Select the dose - Make sure the dose selector is set at 0. Turn the dose selector to select the number of units you need to inject; -Give the injection. Insert the needle into the skin. Press and hold the dose button. After the dose…
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 · D2022-06-30 · tag F0888 — isolatedEnsure staff are vaccinated for COVID-19
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility staff failed to ensure 100% of staff had been fully vaccinated for COVID-19 (a highly contagious virus that causes serious illness or death), or granted a qualifying exemption when one staff (Employee C) had not received the full primary vaccination series as of the start of the survey on 6/28/2022. The facility census was 14. Record review of the facility policy entitled Universal COVID-19 Vaccination (undated) showed the following information: -Vaccination is known to reduce the instance and severity of COVID-19 illness in the workplace. The facility has adopted this policy on mandatory vaccination to safeguard employees, providers, and patients from the hazards of COVID-19; -The facility requires all staff to be fully vaccinated for COVID-19 unless an exemption from this policy has been granted as an accommodation. Regardless of clinical responsibility or patient contact, the policy and procedures apply to covered workforce members, which includes employees, licensed practitioners, and individuals who provide care, treatment, or…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- 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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COXHEALTH | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 06/12/2014 |
| THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | — | since 09/10/2008 |
| ABDALLA, IBRAHIM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/26/2017 |
| AGUIRRE, LOGAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/28/2025 |
| BALDNER, JOSELYN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/27/2026 |
| BAUMGARTNER, JAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/20/2016 |
| CHALENDER, CHARLES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/16/2008 |
| COX, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/28/2021 |
| DOUGLAS, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/27/2023 |
| ERWIN, BRAD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/15/2018 |
| FLAX, JULIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/19/2015 |
| FULP, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/06/2007 |
| GAISIE, NANA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/28/2021 |
| GRAVES, SUSAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/28/2021 |
| HARGIS, SARA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/20/2016 |
| HEIM, DENNIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/06/2007 |
| HELLWEG, KURT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/15/2009 |
| HIGDON, HAL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/16/2008 |
| HUTCHESON, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/06/2007 |
| JARED, BRIAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/20/2016 |
| JARVIS, HOWARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/19/2015 |
| LEMON, DAPHNE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/28/2021 |
| LIPSCOMB, LARRY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/06/2007 |
| LIPSCOMB, STUART | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/19/2023 |
| RUSSELL, KRYSTAL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/24/2019 |
| TAYLOR, CAROL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/17/2014 |
| TURNER, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/06/2007 |
| TYNES, JEFFERSON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/20/2011 |
| YANCEY, PAMELA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/27/2023 |
| BUETOW, MAX | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2022 |
| MCWAY, JACOB | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/06/2025 |
| NELSON, VICKIE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/21/2017 |
| LESTER E COX MEDICAL CENTERS | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/02/2025 |
| CASAD, ASHLEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/24/2024 |
| GURLEY, JACKSON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/15/2026 |
| HEDGPETH, AMANDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| JOHNSON, MICHELLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/15/2026 |
| REARDON, MALISSA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/26/2025 |
| ROBERTS, DONNA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 53 rows in the source record cover these 39 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
What families pay in MO
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Missouri Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 265289. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-23, 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.