Laurel Park Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center

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.

44.1% 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 142 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 72.7% 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 77 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 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 35% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

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

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 108 beds and averages 100.5 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.75 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.36 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.78 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 2.35 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.91 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.41 to 0.24 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 65% is well above 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 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.

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

• Actual harm · G2025-05-21 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolated
  Ensure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
  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, family and Medical Director interviews, the facility failed to protect a severely cognitively resident from physical restraint from a private duty Caregiver and chemical restraint. When Resident #199 refused to take medications from the Nurse the private duty Caregiver offered to assist and forced medications into the Resident's mouth, held her hand over the Resident's mouth, to force her to swallow. When Resident #199 became combative, and kicking and spitting out medications the private Caregiver restrained the Resident by placing her leg over Resident #199 legs to prevent her from kicking. The Nurse asked the Caregiver to stop and left the room to call the on-call provider. The Caregiver continued to restrain the Resident until the Nurse returned to the room and administered an intramuscular antipsychotic medication (chemical restraint) to calm her. Resident #199 was assessed and a pea size discoloration on the bottom side of her lip was observed. A reasonable person would…

  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 · F2025-05-21 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — widespread
  Conduct 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 staff interview and review of the Facility Assessment the facility failed to identify any cultural considerations for the resident population, failed to ensure the staffing plan considered specific staffing needs for each unit and shift as required, and failed to evaluate contracted services utilized by the facility to provide necessary care for its residents during normal operations and emergencies which had the potential to affect 88 of 88 residents. The findings included: Review of the Facility Assessment revealed it was revised on 3/12/25. The Facility Assessment did not include any cultural considerations to meet the needs of the residents of the facility. Further review of the Facility Assessment revealed that the staffing plan listed the number of Nurses (Registered Nurse or Licensed Practical Nurse) and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) noted as the desired number FTE (full-time equivalent, the total number of full-time employees working in an organization) of staff and the professional requirement for those staff members. However, the staffing plan did not…

  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 · E2025-05-21 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — pattern
  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, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide written information to residents and resident representatives regarding advance directive and/or an opportunity to formulate an advance directive for 19 of 22 residents reviewed for advance directives (Resident #1, #5, #8, #21, #25, #26, #29, #33, #37, #40, #50, #52, #58, #72, #73, #75, #91, #95, and #302). The findings included: a. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed the Resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included muscle weakness, and hypotension. The review revealed a full code Physician order dated 5/18/25. There was no documentation in the record for education regarding formulation of an advance directive and/or an opportunity to formulate an advance directive. b. Review of Resident #5's medical record revealed the Resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure, Alzheimer's disease, and cystitis. The review revealed a full code…

  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 · Ecited before2025-05-21 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — pattern
  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 observation, staff interview, and record review the facility failed to clean and maintain resident rooms for 6 of 29 resident rooms on 1 of 4 halls (300 Hall) observed for environment (Resident #39's room, Resident #29's room, Resident #8's room, Resident #56's room, Resident #92's room, and Resident #25's room). The findings included: The Resident Council meeting minutes dated 7/11/24 revealed there were residents' concerns about housekeeping needing to do a better job cleaning residents' room. The residents reported the housekeeping staff were not sweeping and mopping around or under beds. The Resident Council meeting minutes dated 11/22/24 revealed there were residents' voiced concerns about housekeeping not cleaning residents' rooms or emptying resident trash cans in room. The Resident Council meeting minutes dated 3/21/25 revealed the residents felt the rooms were not being swept or mopped. The residents voiced concern that the floors in their rooms were sticky. The Resident Council meeting minutes…

  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 · D2025-05-21 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolated
  Allow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
  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 staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to hold a care plan meeting or invite the resident to participate in the care planning process for 2 of 26 residents whose care plans were reviewed (Resident #26 and Resident #37). The findings included: 1. Resident #26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #26's most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #26 had moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #26 was coded for active participation in the assessment and goal setting. Resident #26's care plans were noted as last reviewed or revised on 3/5/2025. Review of Resident #26's electronic medical record revealed no documentation that a care plan meeting was held or that Resident #26 was invited to participate in a care plan meeting during the time between the 12/4/2024 and 3/5/25 care plan meetings. An interview was completed on 5/18/2025 at 2:24 pm with Resident #26. Resident #26 stated she was unable to recall when she last 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-21 · 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 observation, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment in the area of smoking and elopement alarms for 1 of 26 residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed (Resident #33). The findings included: Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia without behavioral disturbances and bipolar disorder. Review of the Safe Smoking Screening assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #33 was assessed and determined to require supervision while smoking. The assessment further noted the care plan was updated to reflect Resident #33's smoking status. Resident #33 had a physician order dated 4/29/25 for wander guard (elopement alarm) device, check placement every shift. The nursing progress note dated 4/29/25 at 3:32 pm revealed Resident #33 had a wander guard placed on the right ankle. The care plan initiated on 4/29/25 revealed Resident #33 had a care plan in place for smoking with 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-21 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
  Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to update the care plan to include hearing aids for 1 of 33 residents whose care plans were reviewed (Resident #29). The findings included: Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #29 was seen by audiology for evaluation and treatment on 9/12/24. A physician's order dated 2/5/25 indicated the hearing aids were to be inserted every morning. A physician's order dated 2/6/25 indicated the hearing aids were to be removed at bedtime. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #29 had moderate cognitive impairment. The resident was coded as having adequate hearing and wore hearing aids. The care plan, updated 3/19/25, did not include a focus area related to hearing loss or the wearing of new hearing aids. An observation of Resident #29 on 05/19/25 at 9:19 AM revealed the resident was not wearing her hearing aids. 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-21 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
  Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
  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, resident, staff, and physician interviews, the facility failed to obtain a physician order for the use and care of an indwelling urinary catheter for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for urinary catheter (Resident #1). The findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder (a condition where the nerves and muscles that control urination were not working properly causing urinary retention) and a history of a spinal fracture. Resident #1's care plan last revised on 4/30/25 revealed he had an indwelling urinary catheter due to neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder with interventions which included positioning the catheter bag and tubing below the level of the bladder and away from entrance room door. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was cognitively intact and was coded for the use of an indwelling urinary catheter. A hospital Discharge summary dated…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-05-21 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
  Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
  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, resident, Pharmacist and Medical Director interviews, the facility failed to have effective systems in place to ensure intravenous (a soft, flexible tube placed inside a vein used to give medicine or fluids) antibiotic medication was available as ordered for a newly admitted resident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for IV antibiotic therapy (Resident #95). The findings included: Review of the hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed Resident #95 had an order to administer cefazolin (antibiotic) solution 2 grams intravenous (IV) every 8 hours for 42 days. Resident #95 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included osteomyelitis (bone infection) of the left ankle and foot. The Admission/readmission assessment dated [DATE] at 8:52 pm completed by Nurse #3 revealed Resident #95 had a bone infection of the left lower extremity and had IV access in the left arm. Resident #95 had a physician order dated 4/29/25 for cefazolin solution injection 2 grams;…

  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 · D2025-05-21 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolated
  Ensure 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 resident interviews, and Physician interviews, the facility failed to administer scheduled intravenous (a soft, flexible tube placed inside a vein used to give medicine or fluids) antibiotic medication which resulted in 4 doses of the antibiotic being missed for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for IV antibiotic therapy (Resident #95). The findings included: Resident #95 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included osteomyelitis (bone infection) of the left ankle and foot. Resident #95 had a physician order dated 4/29/25 for cefazolin (antibiotic) solution injection 2 grams; administer 2 grams intravenously every 8 hours for bone infection for 42 days. The medication was scheduled to be administered at 6:00 am, 2:00 pm, and 10:00 pm. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for April 2025 revealed the Resident #95's cefazolin was not administered on the following dates: 4/29/25 at 10:00 pm noted as on order by Nurse #3. 4/30/25 at 6:00 am noted as…

  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 · Ecited before2024-05-22 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — pattern
  Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, resident interviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to conduct and document a care plan meeting with a cognitively intact (Resident #86) and moderately impaired (Resident #38) residents newly admitted to the facility and failed to conduct and invite a cognitively intact resident to participate in care plan meetings after two annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments and three quarterly MDS assessments (Resident #26) for 3 of 6 residents reviewed for care planning. Findings included: 1. Resident # 86 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including multiple fractures. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #86 was cognitively intact. Resident #86's baseline care plan was signed by the Assistant Director of Nursing as completing the plan on 5/3/2024. The MDS Nurse signature was not dated and the Director of Nursing signed the baseline care plan on 5/21/2024. Resident # 86's comprehensive care plan dated 5/4/2024 indicated he…

  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

“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

$10,868 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $10,868 — penalty dated 2025-05-21

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 YAD HEALTHCARE — 13 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 5 rows in the source record cover these 3 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

1 organizational owner 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 70% 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 $290K 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 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