Black Mountain Neuro-Medical Treatment Center
932 Old US Highway 70, Black Mountain, NC 28711 · Government - State · 163 certified beds · (828) 259-6700 Medicaid only — no Medicare
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Aug 2024
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | Not rated |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
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 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 10.6% | 15.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.3% | 7.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.3% | 2.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.4% | 5.9% | 6.5% | better |
| 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 | 0.0% | 3.5% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.1% | 18.3% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.9% | 21.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.2% | 5.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.6% | 20.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 48.8% | 14.0% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 78.1% | 79.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.97 | 1.78 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.33 | 1.80 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
Staffing
CMS has not published payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours for this facility yet — this can happen for newer, hospital-based, or recently-certified homes. It can also mean the home simply did not file, which CMS does not distinguish in this data, so treat the gap as unexplained rather than benign. Staffing is one of the three parts of the CMS star rating; where it’s missing, weigh the independent health-inspection score most, and ask the facility directly about its nurse-to-resident ratios and weekend RN coverage.
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2023-03-24 · 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 record review, staff and physician interviews, the facility failed to prevent a significant medication error when Nurse #1 administered medications to Resident #8 that were prescribed for Resident #58 for 1 of 2 sampled residents reviewed for hospitalization. On the morning of 11/23/22, Resident #8 received six medications which included Depakote (mood stabilizer), Bumex (diuretic), Gabapentin (used to treat nerve pain), Metoprolol (used to treat blood pressure), Risperdal (antipsychotic), and Sertraline (antidepressant). On 11/23/22 at 11:50 AM, Resident #8 appeared lethargic (decreased alertness) and was assessed by Nurse #1 to have a heart rate of 43 and her blood pressure reading could not be obtained. Resident #8 was transported to the Emergency Department (ED) for evaluation and subsequently admitted to the hospital for bradycardia (low heart rate) and hypotension (low blood pressure). Findings included: Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included seizure disorder,…
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 · E2024-08-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 and staff interviews the facility failed to discard food items past the use by date in 1 of 2 reach-in coolers; discard food with signs of spoilage in 2 of 2 walk-in coolers; and label and date two bags of unidentifiable frozen food items that had been removed from the original container in 1 of 1 reach-in freezer. This failure had the potential to affect food served to residents. Findings included: a. An observation with the Food Service Director of the reach-in cooler on 08/12/24 at 9:27 AM revealed the following: • A package of sliced white cheese with an opened date of 07/25/24. • A package of sliced yellow cheese with an opened date of 07/30/24. • A 4.5 ounce jar of minced garlic with an open date of 08/01/24. • A package of sliced provolone cheese with an opened date of 08/01/24. • A bag of grated parmesan cheese with an opened date of 08/02/24. • A 16-ounce container of chicken base stock with an opened date of 08/02/24. • A one-pound package of sliced ham with an opened date of 08/04/24. During interviews on 07/28/24 at 9:30 AM and 08/15/24 at 10:10 AM,…
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 · D2024-08-15 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews with staff and the Nurse Practitioner, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from neglect when Nurse Aide (NA) #1 started providing incontinence care for Resident #2 without assistance and was aware of the plan of care instructions for 2-person assist. NA #1 turned away from the bed to reach supplies and Resident #2 rolled off the raised bed onto the fall mat. The deficient practice occurred for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #2). The findings included: Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including traumatic brain injury and osteoporosis. The activities of daily living (ADL) care plan dated 2/21/24 identified Resident #2 was unable to complete ADL without assistance and for nursing staff to refer to the resident's care tracker profile for current recommendations. The care plan further noted Resident #2 was non-ambulatory but had the ability and did slide down but was unable to reposition herself and 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 · E2023-03-24 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure 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 record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments in the area of Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) for 6 of 6 sampled residents reviewed for PASRR (Residents #4, #11, #12, #15, #16, and #37). Findings included: 1. Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included schizophrenia, anxiety disorder, and depression. The annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #4 was not currently considered by the state Level II PASRR process to have a serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or other related conditions. Review of a North Carolina Medicaid Uniform Screening Tool (NC MUST) inquiry document dated 03/22/23 revealed Resident #4 had a Level II PASSR effective 01/11/12. During an interview on 03/23/23 at 11:32 AM, Social Worker (SW) #1 revealed she completed the section related to Level II PASRR on the MDS assessments for the residential unit she was assigned. SW #1 explained 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 · D2023-03-24 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews with staff, Consultant Pharmacist, and Medical Director, the facility failed to monitor the cholesterol level for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #68). The findings included: Review of lipid guidelines published in 2019 by American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association indicated lipid panel should be conducted at baseline, then 4 to 12 weeks after statin therapy was started or when dosage was adjusted. Afterwards, lipid panel test should be repeated once every 3 to 12 months or as needed. Resident #68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebrovascular disease, coronary artery disease, high blood pressure, and hyperlipidemia. Review of the physician's orders dated 06/16/20 revealed Resident #68 had an order to receive 1 tablet of pravastatin 40 milligrams (mg) once daily for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Review of medication administration records (MARs) from January 2023 through March…
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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in NC
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 North Carolina 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 34A001. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-25, 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.