Redwood Health & Rehab

Location & what’s nearby

Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

39.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 60 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 39.1% 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 46 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 0.36 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 61% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 33% 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 116 beds and averages 88.2 residents a day — about 76% occupied, or roughly 28 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 3.43 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.45 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.94 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 3.25 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.51 on weekdays — 7% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.50 to 0.35 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 56% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.

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.

18 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 8 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · D2026-06-23 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
  Honor 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to treat Resident #1 with dignity and respect when Nurse #1 engaged in a verbal argument with Resident #1 utilizing profanity and yelling at Resident #1. This deficient practice affected 1 of 3 residents reviewed for dignity (Resident #1). The findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included heart failure, absence of right leg above knee, and unspecified arthritis. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #1 was cognitively intact and was not coded for behaviors. Resident #1's active care plan, last revised on 4/1/26, had a focus area regarding Resident #1 having behaviors of rejecting care and services. The goal included Resident #1's behaviors will not cause her or other residents any distress through the review period. Interventions included approaching with a calm quiet voice, diverting attention, and removing Resident #1 from 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has no plan of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-23 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, resident, Pulmonologist Office Receptionist, Nurse Practitioner (NP) and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure a resident attended a scheduled pulmonary follow-up visit with the pulmonologist for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for quality of care (Resident #2). The findings included:Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 was cognitively intact. A review of resident #2's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed a scheduled pulmonologist appointment on 6/9/26 at 1:20 PM. An interview with Resident #2 on 6/16/26 at 2:29 PM revealed he had a follow-up appointment with the pulmonologist on 6/9/26 from his hospitalization earlier in the year and no one from the facility took him to the appointment that the NP ordered because no one at the facility knew anything about it. He stated he hadn't been anywhere out of the facility for a while…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has no plan of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-05-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to discard dented canned goods stored for use, failed to dry divided plates prior to stacking, and failed to discard a wet cardboard box of pound cakes covered in frozen condensation. These practices occurred in 1 of 1 walk-in freezer, 1 of 1 dishwashing area, and 1 of 1 dry storage area and had the potential to affect food served to residents. The findings included:An initial tour of the main kitchen occurred on 5/4/26 at 9:58 AM with the Dietary Manager. The following concerns were identified:-A 108 ounce (oz.) can of applesauce with a large dent on the rim and side, a 6.62 pound (lb.) can of mandarin oranges with a small dent on rim, and a 7 lb. can of vanilla pudding with a small dent on the rim were stored in the dry storage area for use.-A cardboard box containing 12-pound cakes was stored under the main cooling fan in the walk-in freezer; the box was dark in appearance and covered in frozen condensation.-Six divided plates were stacked wet (wet-nested) in the dishwasher area.An interview with the Dietary Manager…

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

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-11 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and Nurse Practitioner, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide clinical assessment and treatment when a resident first reported that he was burned after he accidentally spilled his cup of hot noodles on himself for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for quality of care (Resident #70). Findings included: Resident #70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmission on [DATE] with diagnosis that included multiple sclerosis, paraplegia, muscle weakness, and contracture of muscles to lower extremities. Review of physician order dated 7/25/24 revealed Hydrocodone (pain reliever used to treat moderate to severe pain) 5-325 milligrams (MG) one (1) tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed for pain. Review of annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #70 was cognitively intact and had been assessed as being independent for eating, personal hygiene, mobility, and transfers. Resident #70 also required minimal assistance for toileting,…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-05-11 · tag F0849 — isolated
  Arrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews with the Responsible Party (RP), staff, Nurse Practitioner (NP), and hospice staff, the facility failed to ensure effective communication and coordination of care occurred with the hospice provider. On 6/29/25, Resident #101, who was under the care of hospice, fell in his room and was assessed by Nurse #1, assisted back to bed and then sent to the Emergency Department (ED) for evaluation. The hospice on call provider was not notified by facility staff before Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was called. This deficient practice affected 1 of 4 sampled residents reviewed for coordination of hospice services (Resident #101).The findings included:The Hospice Facility and Services Agreement contract dated 4/30/19 stated, With respect to the management of the resident's terminal illness, the facility shall notify Hospice immediately of any significant change in the Patient's status (mental, social, emotional, or physical), clinical complication that suggest a need to…

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

  Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-05-11 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolated
  Make sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
  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 residents, Responsible Party, and staff, the facility failed to ensure the call light system was functioning properly for 3 of 27 residents who required assistance for activities of daily living (Resident #5, Resident #19, and Resident #48). The findings included:a. Resident #5 was admitted on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #5 was assessed as moderately cognitively impaired.An observation of the call light for Resident #5's room and an interview with the resident occurred on 5/4/26 at 11:00 AM. The light in the hallway above the Resident #5's door did not light up when the call light was pressed. Resident #5 stated he was not aware the call light was not working and had been waiting for a staff member to provide ice water and take money to get a soda for him out of the drink machine. He stated he might have to yell if he needed assistance since his call light was not working. There was not a manual…

  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.

  Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-04-24 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — pattern
  Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to secure an opened bottle of antacid for 1 of 1 Resident (Resident #90) and failed to store 3 unopened eye drops at the proper temperature per manufacturer's instructions for 1 of 4 medication cart (100 halls medication cart) review for medication storage. The findings included: a. Resident #90 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #90's medication records revealed he had never been assessed nor approved for self-administration of medication since admission. A review of the physician's orders revealed Resident #90 did not have an order to receive liquid Pepto Bismol (an over-the-counter medication primarily used to relieve upset stomach symptoms such as nausea, heartburn, indigestion, and diarrhea). The significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] coded Resident #90 with moderately impaired cognition During a medication storage observation conducted on 04/21/25 at 11:33 AM, an opened bottle…

  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.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-04-24 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
  Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
  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, record review, and interviews with resident and staff, the facility failed to ensure dependent residents could access the light switch located behind the bed for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for accommodation of needs (Resident #157). The findings included: Resident #157 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #157's medical records revealed she had resided in the current room since 04/09/25. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] coded Resident #157 with severely impaired cognition. The MDS indicated walking between locations inside the room for more than 10 feet was not attempted by Resident #157 during the assessment period due to medical condition or safety concerns. During an observation conducted on 04/21/25 at 11:19 AM, the switch for the light fixture that was located behind Resident #157's bed on the wall approximately 5 feet from the floor and 6 feet from the bed and was attached with a broken cord approximately 3 inches in length. Resident…

  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 · D2025-04-24 · 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 accuracy and consistency of advance directive throughout the medical record for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #62) reviewed for advance directives. The findings included: Resident #62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #62's care plan initiated on [DATE] indicated his advance directive was a full code. Interventions included receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) through the next review period. A review of Resident #62's electronic health records (EHR) indicated a physician's order dated [DATE] for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). A review of the advance directive binder at the nurses' station dated [DATE] indicated Resident #62 was coded as DNR. During an interview conducted on [DATE] at 1:00 PM, Nurse #3, who was assigned to Resident #62, stated when a code was called, she would check the advanced directive in the EHR or the hard chart in the nurses' station to confirm whether the resident was a full code or 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-04-24 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to exercise reasonable care for the protection of the resident's property from loss or theft for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for safe, clean, comfortable, homelike environment (Resident #71). The findings included: Resident #71 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included history of a right above the knee amputation (R AKA) and neoplasm of the brain. The significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #71 was cognitively intact. An interview with Resident #71 on 4/22/2025 at 10:43 AM revealed he was sent to the hospital from the facility on 1/21/2025. When he returned to the facility on 2/6/2025, he found out his belongings had been packed up and removed from his room during his hospital stay. Resident #71 recalled the housekeeping manager brought 2 boxes to his room on 2/6/2025. The boxes were sealed with tape. After unpacking the boxes that evening, Resident #71 stated his Apple iPad Pro, 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.

  Resident Rights 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

$7,742 in federal fines across 2 penalties.

• $3,871 — penalty dated 2024-01-17
• $3,871 — penalty dated 2024-01-17

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 SIMCHA HYMAN & NAFTALI ZANZIPER — 79 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 8 rows in the source record cover these 7 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.

About 79% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $3.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 29% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in NC