The Greens at Lincolnton
515 S Generals Boulevard, Lincolnton, NC 28093 · For profit - Corporation · 117 certified beds · (704) 735-8065 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- inspectors recorded 3 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (18) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $32,387 in federal fines (most recent 2024-09-19)
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 18.1% | 15.6% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 11.1% | 7.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.8% | 2.3% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.3% | 5.9% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.2% | 3.5% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.3% | 18.3% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 29.7% | 21.3% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.8% | 94.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.1% | 5.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.1% | 20.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.6% | 14.0% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.3% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 78.6% | 78.1% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.2% | 22.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.2% | 12.9% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.01 | 1.78 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.07 | 1.80 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
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.
55.4% 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 182 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 50.0% 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 72 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 0.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 36% 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.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 55.4%CMS range 49.0–62.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.2%CMS range 6.7–12.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 50.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 45.8% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 38.9% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 69.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 97.5% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.9% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 10.2%CMS range 5.5–15.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.05 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 117 beds and averages 106.8 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 10 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 3.70 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.21 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.15 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 3.09 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.95 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.24 to 0.13 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
18 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-09-19 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
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 (NP), Medical Director, family, and staff interviews, the facility failed to prevent an accident when a resident (Resident #1) who received Eliquis (anticoagulant medication) sustained an injury from a bed rail assist bar on 8/30/24. Resident #1's injury from the bed rail assist bar resulted in the formation of a large hematoma, swelling, and diffuse black/purple bruising to her left arm from her left elbow down to her fingertips. The hematoma ruptured resulting in a large open wound to the left upper forearm with fat tissue exposure and uncontrolled bleeding. Resident #1 was transferred to the hospital emergency room on 8/30/24 for treatment of her injury and returned to the facility that evening with a pressure dressing in place to her left arm. On the morning of 8/31/24 Resident #1 had bleeding through the pressure dressing to her left arm that was unable to be controlled and required for her to be transferred back to the hospital emergency room.…
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.
- Actual harm · G2024-09-19 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry 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, Nurse Practitioner (NP), family, and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately assess a resident (Resident #1) for bed rail assist bars, failed to assess a resident (Resident #1) prior to implementation of bed rail assist bars, and failed to review the risks associated with the use of bed rail assist bars with Resident #1's Resident Representative. Resident #1 sustained a hematoma to her left arm from the bed rail assist bar and was transferred to the hospital emergency room on 8/30/24 and 8/31/24 for treatment. Resident #1 was admitted to the hospital related to her hematoma injury on 8/31/24 and required a blood transfusion during her hospitalization. This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for bed rails. Findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses: vascular parkinsonism (Parkinson symptoms, slow movements, tremor, difficulty walking, stiffness/ rigidity that are caused by problems with…
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.
- Actual harm · G2024-05-16 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, resident, staff, and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interview the facility failed to prevent a significant medication error by administering (Resident #1) a medication without following set parameters for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for assuring facility was free from significant medication errors. Resident #1 was administered a blood pressure medication with set parameters to only administer if blood pressure was greater or equal to 170. Prior to the medication being administered, Resident #1 blood pressure was 139/64, after being administered the medication Resident #1 blood pressure dropped to 70/40 and she was sent out to the hospital for low blood pressure and altered mental status. The facility also failed to prevent a significant medication error by administering (Resident #1) a medication listed as having an allergy to for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for assuring facility was free from significant medication errors. Resident #1 was prescribed and administered a reflux medication that 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.
- Actual harm · G2024-03-14 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such 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 observations, record reviews, staff, Pharmacist, Medical Director and family member interviews, the facility failed to administer scheduled narcotic pain medication causing the resident (Resident #12) to experience increased pain for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pain management. The finding included: Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic gout, arthritis and chronic pain. Review of Resident #12's revised care plan dated 03/18/23 revealed a risk for developing complications related to the use of opioid pain medication. The goal that the Resident would remain free of adverse effects of the opioid would be attained by utilizing interventions such as monitoring for signs and symptoms of pain, monitoring for signs of overdose and monitoring for effectiveness. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #12's cognition was severely impaired, and not coded as having moods and behaviors. The Resident required supervision 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.
- Actual harm · G2024-03-14 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide 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 reviews, staff, Pharmacist and Medical Director interviews the facility failed to obtain a narcotic pain medication from the pharmacy which caused a resident to miss 4 doses of the pain medication for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #12) reviewed for pain. The finding included: Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic gout, arthritis and chronic pain. Review of Resident #12's revised care plan dated 03/18/23 revealed a risk for developing complications related to the use of opioid pain medication. The goal that the Resident would remain free of adverse effects of the opioid would be attained by utilizing interventions such as monitoring for signs and symptoms of pain, monitoring for signs of overdose and monitoring for effectiveness. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #12's cognition was severely impaired, and not coded as having moods and behaviors. The Resident required supervision to limited assistance with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-02-12 · tag F0644 — patternCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to submit a request for a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) evaluation for residents with new mental health diagnoses for 4 of 5 residents (Resident #9, Resident #14, Resident #15, and Resident #68) reviewed for PASRR. The findings include:a. Review of Resident #9's medical record revealed PASRR level I was completed 8/23/24 prior to admission to the facility with a recommendation to resubmit paperwork for a PASRR level II if a new mental health diagnosis was suspected or if there was a significant change in the resident's condition. Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmission on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #9's current active diagnoses included psychotic disorder (diagnosed on [DATE]) and major depressive disorder (diagnosed on [DATE]). There was no evidence in the medical record that a request was submitted for a Level II PASRR evaluation. b. Review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-02-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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, Nurse Practitioner (NP), Physician, COVID test manufacturer customer service representative, and Health Department (HD) Nurse interviews, the facility failed to follow their infection control policy and procedures during a COVID outbreak. The facility's COVID outbreak began on [DATE] when a Resident (Resident #12) tested positive for COVID. The facility had a total of 25 residents and 12 staff members who tested positive from [DATE] to [DATE]. During the facility's ongoing COVID-19 outbreak, staff failed to wear all personal protection equipment (PPE) required according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance when 1 of 1 Nurse Aide (NA) (NA #2) entered a resident room under transmission-based precautions (TBP) for COVID without wearing eye protection. Additionally, 1 of 1 Unit Manager (UM) (UM#1) failed to wear all PPE required according to CDC guidance while performing resident COVID testing. The facility also failed to restrict 9 of 9 staff…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-02-12 · tag F0887 — patternEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
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, and Regional Nurse Consultant interviews the facility failed to include documentation in the medical record of education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the COVID-19 immunization and failed to offer COVID-19 vaccines to 5 of 5 residents reviewed for COVID-19 immunizations (Resident #3, #16, #99, #117 and #127).The findings included:Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #3 was cognitively intact and was coded No for Covid-19 immunization being up to date.Review of Resident #3's medical record revealed no history of a Covid-19 vaccination. There was no documentation in the medical record that indicated the COVID-19 vaccine had been offered to Resident #3 or education had been provided to Resident #3 regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine.An interview was conducted on 2/12/26 at 10:40 AM with Resident #3. He stated he does 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.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-12 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide 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 observations, record review, and staff and Nurse Practitioner (NP) interviews, the facility failed to use a catheter tubing stabilization device to reduce the risk of pulling and tugging of indwelling urinary catheter tubing. This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 3 residents reviewed with a urinary catheter (Resident #2).Findings included:Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included bladder neck obstruction (urinary disorder).The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #2 had an indwelling urinary catheter.An indwelling catheter care plan dated 11/17/25 was in place. The care plan goal was to remain free from catheter related trauma. The care plan interventions included, to secure catheter to prevent excess tension.An order dated 12/5/25 read, change [indwelling] catheter as needed for infection, dislodgement, or obstruction. Insert coude catheter (specialized curved urinary catheter) indwelling due to urinary retention with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-11-07 · tag F0745 — failed to provide medically-related social services — patternProvide medically-related social services to help each resident achieve the highest possible quality of life.
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, staff, and pulmonology office staff interviews, the facility failed to schedule a sleep study per the Pulmonologists recommendations for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #64). The findings included: Resident #64 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic pain and atrial fibrillation. A quarterly Minimum Data Set for Resident #64 dated 8/23/24 revealed the resident was cognitively intact with no respiratory issues noted. Review of pulmonologist note dated 7/03/24 revealed Resident #64 had been seen for scheduled office visit on 7/03/24 for the following issues: acute respiratory infection, shortness of breath, chronic rhinitis and morbid obesity. Order referrals were made for Resident #64 to have scheduled a pulmonary function test and split sleep study test by a sleep provider only. A telephone interview was conducted on 11/06/24 at 1:43 PM with the Pulmonology Office Manager. The Office Manager revealed Resident #64…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-14 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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, observations, Family Member and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a resident's dignity by not answering their call light when toileting assistance was requested for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #13). The reasonable person concept was applied to this deficiency as an individual would not want to feel like they were being ignored when assistance with care was requested. Findings included: Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #13 with severe cognitive impairment. Resident #13 required substantial/maximal assistance with toileting hygiene and displayed no rejection of care during the MDS assessment period. An Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care plan, last revised on 03/15/23, revealed Resident #13 had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to weakness and confusion. Interventions included: requires extensive assistance of one staff member for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-14 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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, family and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide assistance with shaving and dentures for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (Resident #11 and Resident #12). Findings included: 1. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (trouble breathing), shortness of breath, and anxiety disorder. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #11 with severe cognitive impairment and requiring partial to moderate staff assistance with personal hygiene. Resident #11 displayed verbal behaviors toward others 1 to 3 days and did not reject care during the MDS assessment period. A review of Resident #11's comprehensive care plans last revised 02/12/24 revealed no plan that addressed Activities of Daily Living (ADL). During an observation and interview on 03/13/24 at 12:23 PM, Resident #11 was lying in bed with the head of bed slightly elevated.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-14 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolatedProvide appropriate foot 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 observations, record reviews, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's toenails were trimmed for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #11). Findings included: Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (trouble breathing), shortness of breath, and anxiety disorder. A physician's order dated 01/31/24 for Resident #11 read, may be seen and treated by a Podiatrist. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #11 with severe cognitive impairment and requiring partial to moderate staff assistance with personal hygiene. Resident #11 displayed verbal behaviors toward others 1 to 3 days and did not reject care during the MDS assessment period. A review of Resident #11's medical record revealed no documentation she was seen by a Podiatrist since her admission to the facility. During an observation and interview on 03/13/24 at 12:23 PM, Resident #11 was lying in bed with her feet…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-01 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, local police interview, and record review, the facility failed to report a suspicious white powder in a little zip bag found in the room of Resident #1 to local law enforcement. The facility also failed to preserve potential evidence when they destroyed the white powder. Resident #1 experienced a potential drug overdose on 1/21/24 which responded with Naloxone (medication designed to rapidly reverse opioid overdose) given by the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and was sent to the hospital for treatment. This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for accidents (Resident #1). The findings included: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and she was readmitted on [DATE]. Interview with the Nursing Assistant (NA #1) on 1/30/24 at 11:15 AM stated that she worked several days with Resident #1, and she found the Resident #1 slumped in her wheelchair after her breakfast around 10 AM on 1/21/24. NA #1 stated that she was going around taking Vital Signs (VS) for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-18 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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 observations, record review, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to secure medications stored at the bedside for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for medication storage (Resident #5, Resident #1, and Resident #3). Findings included: 1. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility 11/01/23 with a diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (acid reflux). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #5 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #5's physician orders dated 12/01/23 revealed an order for calcium carbonate 1,250 milligrams (mg) one tablet twice a day. An observation of Resident #5's overbed table on 01/17/24 at 1:00 PM revealed one round yellow pill in a medication cup sitting on top of the table. Resident #5 was not in her room. An interview with Nurse #1 on 01/17/24 at 1:02 PM revealed the yellow pill on Resident #5's overbed table was calcium carbonate (an antacid). She stated she was training a Medication Aide (MA) #1 on how to perform a medication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-21 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop 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, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to develop a comprehensive, individualized care plan in the areas of oxygen use, Diabetes Mellitus (DM) type 2, and daily anticoagulation use for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for care plans. The findings include: 1. Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnosis: history of Covid-19, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and insulin dependent DM type 2. Review of physician orders for Resident #4 revealed: - 3/6/23 for anticoagulation to be administered daily and dosage to change according to lab results for a history of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). - 3/13/23 for Insulin 14 units at bedtime and changed on 6/18/23 to 10 units at bedtime for DM type 2 -5/22/23 for Oxygen at 2 Liters per minute via nasal cannula for COPD Review of admission minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #4 had moderate cognitive impairment. She…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-06-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement their infection control policy when the Treatment Nurse did not perform hand hygiene after removing a soiled dressing with drainage on it and before cleansing the wound with wound cleanser-soaked gauze for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #152) reviewed for wound care. The findings included: The facility's policy entitled Infection Control Guidelines for All Nursing Procedures last revised on 12/29/20, under General Guidelines read in part: 4. In most situations, the preferred method of hand hygiene is with an alcohol-based hand rub. If hands are not visibly soiled, use an alcohol-based hand rub containing 60-95% ethanol or isopropanol for all the following situations: a. Before and after direct contact with residents, b. Before donning gloves, e. Before handling clean or soiled dressings, gauze pads, etc. h. After handling used dressings, contaminated equipment, etc. j. After removing gloves. An observation of wound care by the Treatment Nurse was made on 06/21/23 at 1:26 PM. The Treatment Nurse…
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.
- No harm found · B2024-11-07 · tag F0582 — patternGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
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 provide Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)-10055 Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN) prior to discharge from Medicare Part A skilled services for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for beneficiary protection notification (Residents #60 and Resident # 253). Findings included: 1. Resident #60 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] A review of the Notice of Medicare NON-Coverage form dated 08/12/24 revealed the facility initiated Resident #60 discharge from Medicare Part A services on 10/28/24 and continued to stay in the facility. A Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN) form was not issued to Resident #60 or her Responsible Party (RP). A joint interview was conducted with the Social Worker and the Business Manager on 11/06/24 at 9:00am. They revealed they were both trained in how to complete the discharge forms. They stated they issued the NOMNC to the residents and/or RP at least 2 days…
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.
“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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$32,387 in federal fines across 4 penalties.
- $6,271 — penalty dated 2024-09-19
- $6,271 — penalty dated 2024-09-19
- $9,318 — penalty dated 2024-01-18
- $10,527 — penalty dated 2024-01-18
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 CCH HEALTHCARE — 33 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
The other 32 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.5★, per CMS)
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
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BYNC HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/01/2022 |
| STARLIGHT HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 07/01/2022 |
| COLEY, TARA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 07/01/2022 |
| JEREMIAS, BARUCH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2022 |
| STERN, JACOB | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.8M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% 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
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the North Carolina Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 345250. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-12, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.