Smoky Ridge Health and Rehabilitation

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.

52.8% 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 80 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 43.8% 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 80 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 0.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 30% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 140 beds and averages 101.1 residents a day — about 72% occupied, or roughly 39 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.08 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.75 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.79 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.75 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.22 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.81 to 0.60 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% 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 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.

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

• Actual harm · G2024-03-20 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect 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 resident, Family Member, and staff interviews, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from employee to resident abuse for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #1). Nurse #1 reported that Resident #1 hit Nurse Aide (NA) #1 in the face while she was providing care to him. Nurse #1 observed NA #1 grab Resident #1's arm and push it towards his stomach and hold it there while leaning in Resident #1 face and saying, don't you ever hit me again, do you understand?. Three days after the incident Resident #1 was observed to have a small round circular bruise on top of his right forearm and a faded circular bruise on the side of his right forearm. A reasonable person would expect to be free from abuse in their own home and could experience anger, fear, anxiety, and depressed mood. The findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated…

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

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-06-26 · tag F0641 — pattern
  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 record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment in the areas of falls, medications received, and hospice for 4 of 21 residents reviewed for accuracy of MDS assessments (Resident #12, #7, #9 and #10). Findings included: 1. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A nurse's progress note revealed on 5/11/26, Resident #12 was found sitting on the floor beside the bed and reported he tried to get up and fell. Resident #12's vital signs and range of motion were assessed as being within normal limits, there were no visible signs of an injury, and he was assisted back to bed. A review of discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE] coded for falls since admission/entry or reentry or the prior assessment indicated Resident #12 had no falls. A joint interview with MDS Coordinator #1 and MDS Coordinator #2 was conducted on 06/26/26 at 11:34 AM. MDS Coordinator #1 stated Resident #12's fall on 5/11/26 should have been coded on the discharge…

  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 before2026-06-26 · tag F0646 — isolated
  Notify the appropriate authorities when residents with MD or ID services has a significant change in condition.
  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 submit a request for a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) reevaluation after a significant change in physical or mental status was identified for a resident previously determined to have a Level II PASRR. This deficient practice affected 1 of 2 sampled residents reviewed for PASRR (Resident #90).Findings included:Resident #90 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her cumulative diagnoses included anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, depression, and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).A PASRR Level II Determination Letter dated 12/08/23 revealed Resident #90 had a Level II PASRR with no effective date and nursing facility placement was appropriate.A significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #90 was considered by the state Level II PASRR process to have a serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or other related conditions. Resident #90's active…

  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 · D2025-03-20 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
  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 maintain accurate advance directive information throughout the electronic and paper medical records for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for advance directive (Resident #73). Findings included: Resident #73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and history of pulmonary embolism (blood clot blocking blood flow to the lungs). The admission Minimum Data (MDS) assessment indicated Resident #73's cognition was intact. A review of the paper medical records revealed on [DATE] Resident #73 signed a Medical Scope of Treatment (MOST) form and checked if no pulse and not breathing attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). A review of Resident #73's electronic medical record revealed a physician's order dated [DATE] for code status Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) created by the Unit Manager. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:05 PM Nurse #9 revealed she was Resident #73's assigned nurse and in an emergency…

  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 · D2025-03-20 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolated
  Protect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
  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, observations, and interviews with staff, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from misappropriation of a controlled narcotic pain medication for 1 of 10 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #93). Findings included: The facility's Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation policy dated 09/01/24 revealed the policy and procedures was created to protect residents against abuse that included misappropriation of resident property defined in part as the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or permanent use of resident's belongings without consent. Resident #93 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The physician orders for Resident #93 included to administer hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5-325 milligrams (mg) with directions to give two tablets every six hours for pain started on 11/19/24. A review of the Resident #93's medical record revealed the resident resided on the 400 Hall on 12/05/24 and 12/06/24. A review of the Medication Administration Records (MAR) for Resident #93…

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

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-20 · 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 record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments in the areas of pressure ulcer care (Resident #96), fall (Resident #35), and discharge (Resident #84) for 3 of 20 residents reviewed for MDS accuracy. 1. Resident #96 was admitted to the facility 05/28/24 with a diagnosis including rhabdomyolysis (breakdown of muscle tissue). Review of Resident #96's physician orders dated 05/30/24 included to apply betadine three times a day to bilateral (both sides) knee unstageable wounds, left forearm unstageable wound, right cheek unstageable wound, right thigh unstageable wound, and unstageable wound to right heel. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #96 had one stage 3 pressure ulcer (an ulcer that extends through the top two layers of skin) present upon admission, eight unstageable pressure ulcers due to coverage of wound bed by slough (soft dead tissue) and/or eschar (hard dead tissue), and one deep…

  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 · D2025-03-20 · tag F0644 — isolated
  Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
  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 ensure a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) level II was completed after a new mental health diagnosis for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #77) reviewed for PASRR. The findings include: Review of Resident #77's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and a PASRR level I was completed. The resident was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder on 2/13/25 and no PASRR level II was completed. During an interview on 3/20/25 at 10:59 AM with the Social Worker (SW) she revealed PASRR level II should be completed upon admission for residents with a mental health diagnosis and when a resident has had a change of condition or a newly added mental health diagnosis. She stated she had begun working at the facility in January 2025 and was currently receiving training from the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator on how and when level II PASRR should be completed. She revealed that given Resident #77's newly added…

  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 before2025-03-20 · tag F0646 — isolated
  Notify the appropriate authorities when residents with MD or ID services has a significant change in condition.
  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 request a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) re-evaluation after a significant change in physical or mental status for 1 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for PASRR (Resident #7). Findings included: Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included moderate intellectual disabilities and anxiety disorder. A PASRR Level II determination notification letter dated 12/31/18 revealed Resident #7 had a Level II PASRR with no expiration date. The significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #7 was considered by the state Level II PASRR process to have a serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or other related conditions. The North Carolina Medicaid Uniform Screening Tool (NC MUST) inquiry dated 03/19/25 revealed Resident #7 received a Level II PASRR effective 12/31/18 with no expiration date. There were no requests for re-evaluation after 12/31/18.…

  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 · F2023-12-01 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain clean ceiling vents located in the dry storage room and in the kitchen, failed to maintain a clean walk-in refrigerator and remove food with signs of spoilage from the walk-in refrigerator. Additionally, the facility failed to clean and maintain 3 of 3 ice makers, and clean and maintain ice cooler scoops and holders (the kitchen ice maker, North and South nourishment room ice makers). This practice had the potential to affect food and beverages served to residents. The findings included: a. On 11/27/23 at 9:23 AM an observation of a ceiling vent in the dry storage area of the kitchen contained a build up of fluffy debris with spider webs spread across the vent. An approximately 4 foot long by 6-inch strip of ceiling in front of the vent contained a black splotchy/and spotted substance covering the area. b. On 11/27/23 at 9:28 AM the walk-in refrigerator circulatory fan contained a thick build up of crumbly to touch debris that was spread to the ceiling of the walk-in refrigerator. During the same observation,…

  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 · F2023-12-01 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — widespread
  Set up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, record review, and interviews the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions previously put in place following a COVID-19 focused survey that occurred 12/04/20. This failure was for one deficiency that was originally cited in the area of Infection Control (F-880) and was subsequently recited on the current recertification and complaint investigation survey of 12/01/23. The continued failure during two federal surveys of record showed a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective quality assurance program. Findings included: This tag is cross referenced to: F880: Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to assess the facility's water system to identify where Legionella and other waterborne pathogens could grow and spread which had the potential to affect 92 of 92 residents. The facility also failed to ensure staff implemented their infection control policies and procedures when Nurse #1 did not place a barrier between 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.

  Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2023-12-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to assess the facility's water system to identify where Legionella and other waterborne pathogens could grow and spread which had the potential to affect 92 of 92 residents. The facility also failed to ensure staff implemented their infection control policies and procedures when Nurse #1 did not place a barrier between the wound care supplies and an overbed table that had crumbs and dried debris on the surface and did not change her gloves after removing a wound dressing and before cleaning the wound for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #54). Findings included: 1. Review of the facility's Emergency Preparedness Plan revealed no evidence a facility water safety risk assessment was completed to identify where Legionella or other waterborne pathogens could grow and spread in the facility's water system. During an interview on 11/30/23 at 8:56 AM, the Maintenance Director confirmed he had not completed a water safety risk assessment for the facility. He explained the facility utilized town water and it 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.

  Infection Control 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

$59,631 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $59,631 — penalty dated 2024-03-20

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 BRIGHTON HEALTHCARE — 8 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 18 rows in the source record cover these 10 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

4 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 $574K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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, FY2024). 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 NC