Premier Nursing and Rehabilitation 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.

53.0% 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 248 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 55.9% 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 136 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 0.37 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 64% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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 239 beds and averages 141.7 residents a day — about 59% occupied, or roughly 97 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.22 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.50 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.02 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 2.84 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.37 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.59 to 0.27 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 48% 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.

31 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 20 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · G2024-03-27 · 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, staff, and Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner interviews, the facility failed to protect 2 of 5 residents' rights to be free from physical abuse (Residents #114 and #29). All residents involved resided in the memory care unit. Resident #99 struck the back of Resident #114's head on 9/8/23 and hit Resident #114's left jaw twice on 10/11/23. Both incidents occurred after Resident #114 wandered into Resident #99's room. Resident #114 had redness and a small amount of swelling to the left side of face after the second incident. Resident #99 slapped Resident #29 on the cheek after Resident #29 touched Resident #99's pants in the activity room. Resident #29 sustained no injuries. A reasonable person would not expect to be physically abused in their home and would experience feelings such as intimidation, fear, humiliation, embarrassment, and anxiety. This was for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for abuse. 1. Resident #99 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #99's diagnoses included…

  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 · D2025-04-24 · 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 observation, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to treat a resident with dignity when a nurse aide did not sit while feeding a resident who needed assistance with meals for 1 of 2 dining observations (Resident #51). The reasonable person concept was applied as individuals have the expectation of being treated with dignity and would not want staff to stand over them while assisting with meals. Findings included: Resident #51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her active diagnoses included dysphagia. Review of Resident #51's Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was assessed as severely cognitively impaired and totally dependent on staff for eating. Review of Resident #51's care plan dated 4/21/25 revealed she was dependent on staff for eating. During observation on 4/23/25 at 1:06 PM Nurse Aide #4 was observed assisting Resident #51 with lunch. The nurse aide was standing next to Resident #51 who was seated in her specialized wheelchair with her bedside table in…

  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 before2025-04-24 · 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 observations, record review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment in the areas of swallowing/nutritional status (Resident #39) and hospitalization (Resident #138). This was for 2 of 24 residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments. Findings included: 1. Resident #39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of an admission nursing progress note for Resident #39 dated 10/2/24 at 6:45 PM revealed in part he had a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tube (a PEG tube is a feeding tube placed into the stomach through the abdominal wall). A review of a physician's order for Resident #39 dated 10/2/24 revealed to flush his tube every 4 hours with 100 cubic centimeters (cc) of water (H2O). A review of Resident #39's March 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed documentation indicating 100 cc of H2O was administered via Resident #39's PEG tube every 4 hours at 12:00 AM, 4:00 AM, 8:00 AM, 12:00 PM, 4:00 PM,…

  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 before2025-04-24 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  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, Responsible Party (RP) and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement the comprehensive care plan in the area of activities of daily living (Resident #27), and failed to develop an individualized, person-centered comprehensive care plan to include the use of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tube (a PEG tube is a feeding tube placed into the stomach through the abdominal wall) (Resident #39), and the use of a noninvasive mechanical ventilator (a device to help with nighttime breathing for people with respiratory issues) (Resident #290 and Resident #71). This was for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for activities of daily living, 1 of 2 residents reviewed for tube feeding, and 2 of 4 residents reviewed for respiratory services. Findings included: 1. Resident #27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of intracerebral hemorrhage (bleeding in the brain). A review of Resident #27's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE]…

  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 before2025-04-24 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
  Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when 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 observations, record review, and resident, staff and Medical Director interviews the facility failed to obtain a physician's order for the use of a BiPAP machine (a device that delivers two levels of air pressure during inhalation and exhalation to help people with breathing difficulties) (Resident #290) and a physician's order for use of a CPAP machine (a machine that used mild air pressure to keep breathing airways open while sleeping) (Resident #71). The facility also failed to administer oxygen by tracheostomy (a surgical opening in the neck for breathing) in accordance with the Physicians order (Resident #39). This was for 3 of 4 residents reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #290, Resident #71 and Resident #39). Findings included: 1. Resident #290 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute and chronic respiratory failure. The hospital discharge summary for Resident #290 dated 4/3/25 stated she needed to wear a BiPAP machine (a device that delivers two levels of…

  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 · D2025-04-24 · tag F0700 — isolated
  Try different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to attempt alternatives, assess entrapment risk, review risks and benefits and obtain informed consent prior to installing and utilizing bilateral quarter length side rails for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for side rails (Resident #290). Findings included: Resident #290 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute and chronic respiratory failure. Resident #290's 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed she was cognitively intact and had impairment to bilateral upper and lower extremities. The MDS further revealed she needed substantial to maximum assistance with bed mobility. Resident #290 was observed lying in her bed with bilateral quarter length side rails in the raised position on 4/21/25 at 11:15 AM. In an interview with Resident #290 on 4/21/25 at 11:15 AM she stated she needed the side rails for bed mobility and positioning. A review of Resident #290's electronic…

  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 · D2025-04-24 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
  Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
  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 staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical record with regards to documentation of actual oxygen (O2) administration rate and route. This was for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #39) reviewed for the accuracy of medical records related to respiratory care. Findings included: Resident #39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of tracheostomy status. A review of a current physician's order for Resident #39 dated as initiated on 12/12/24 revealed to administer 4 liters (L) of oxygen (O2) per minute via tracheostomy to maintain Resident #39's O2 saturations above 90 percent (%). On 4/21/25 at 2:44 PM an observation of Resident #39 in his room revealed he was receiving O2 via NC at 3L per minute. He was not in any respiratory distress. On 4/22/25 at 2:12 PM an observation of Resident #39 in his room revealed he was receiving O2 via NC at 3L per minute. He was not in any respiratory distress. On 4/23/24 at 11:02 AM an observation of…

  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 before2025-04-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
  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 implement their policy for enhanced barrier precautions (EPB) when Nurse #4 failed to wear a gown when providing tracheostomy (a surgical opening in the neck for breathing) care for Resident #27 and when Nurse #5 and Nurse #6 failed to wear a gown during a high contact care activity that included transfer and the provision skin care and hygiene for Resident #39 who had a tracheostomy. This was for 3 of 8 staff members observed for infection control practices. This had the potential to result in the risk of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) transmission. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions dated last revised on 6/13/24 revealed in part the following: Enhanced Barrier Precautions are used in conjunction with standard precautions to reduce the risk of MDRO transmission during high-contact resident care activities. It includes the use of both gown and gloves. Enhanced Barrier Precautions apply to residents with any of the following: Presence of 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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-03-27 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
  Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete and submit an initial report for an abuse allegation within 2 hours of discovery to the state regulatory agency. The facility also failed to notify the police department, or Adult Protective Services (APS) for staff to resident abuse (resident #350) for 1 of 3 residents investigated for facility reported incidents. Findings included: A facility grievance form dated 10/10/23 was filed by SW#1 on behalf of resident #350. A review of the form revealed the resident stated her hair was pulled and that a bruise on her right hand was caused by NA #5 because the resident did not want to go to bed. Resident #350 further stated that her parents were outside the locked door, and no one would let them in. The form further revealed SW #1 reported the incident to the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and Administrator #2 immediately after taking the report from the resident. An interview with SW #1 on 3/20/24 at 11:10 AM revealed she visited Resident #350 on 10/10/23 and noticed a bruise on her right hand. SW #1 asked…

  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 before2024-03-27 · 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 2. Resident #68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, in part, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side. A review of Resident #68's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated that Resident #68 was severely cognitively impaired. Hospice Care was not indicated. A review of Resident #68's Care Plan, last revised 12/13/23, revealed a problem of has advanced directives with an intervention of resident/responsible party elected hospice. This intervention was initiated on 09/28/23. A review of Resident #68's Physician orders revealed an order, dated 12/22/23, which read, admit to hospice services effective 09/21/23. An interview was conducted with the MDS Coordinator nurse on 03/21/24 at 1:37 p.m. The nurse stated he completed the significant change MDS, dated [DATE], because Resident #68 was placed on hospice services. The nurse explained that he missed marking Hospice Care due to human error. A telephone interview…

  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 before2024-03-27 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  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 develop a person-centered care plan for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for respiratory services (Resident #37). The findings included: Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure and shortness of breath. A review of Resident #37's physician orders revealed an order dated 2/16/24 for supplemental oxygen at 2 liters per minute by nasal cannula to keep the oxygen saturation above 90%. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #37 received continuous supplemental oxygen. A review of Resident #37's comprehensive care plan revealed no care plan was developed related to oxygen use from admission through 3/21/24. Interview with Nurse #6 (MDS nurse) on 3/21/24 at 9:05 AM revealed supplemental oxygen use was triggered on the admission MDS and should have been part of the care plan. She stated the mistake was made by human error. An interview with Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/21/24 at…

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

  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

$51,984 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $51,984 — penalty dated 2024-03-27

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 PRINCIPLE LONG TERM CARE — 40 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 15 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

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.

This home reported $3.8M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 23% 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