Wadesboro Health & Rehab 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.

49.2% 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 65 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 34.4% 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 32 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 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 54% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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 66 beds and averages 59.6 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 6 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 3.30 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.550 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.98 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 2.92 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.45 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.68 to 0.23 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% is below 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.

19 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 9 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-05-07 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to discard leftover food stored past the use by date in 1 of 1 walk-in cooler. The facility also failed to label and date leftover frozen food removed from its original packaging in 1 of 1 reach-in freezer and 1 of 1 deep freezer. This practice had the potential to affect food served to residents. The findings included: Observations during the initial tour of the main kitchen with Dietary Aide #1 on 05/04/25 at 11:03 AM, revealed the following: a. In the reach-in freezer the following leftover frozen food removed from its original packaging were observed: -1/4 bag of beef riblets with no label or date. -1/2 of large bag of fish fillets with no label or date. An interview was conducted on 05/04/25 at 11:10 AM with Dietary Aide #1. She stated a date should have been written on the bags of leftover frozen foods when they were opened. She stated whoever opened the items were the ones responsible for writing the open date on it. She indicated the Dietary Manager checks the freezers and coolers daily. b. In the deep freezer…

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

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-07 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately in the area of falls (Resident #32) for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. The findings included: Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included a history of a fracture to the right knee and muscle weakness. A review of Resident #32's medical record revealed she had a self-reported fall on 1/3/25 that resulted in a skin tear to her left hip since the admission MDS assessment on 12/2/24. A quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #32 was cognitively intact. She was not coded with any falls since the last assessment. On 5/6/25 at 10:19 AM, an interview occurred with the MDS Nurse #2 who reviewed the MDS assessment dated [DATE] as well as Resident #32's medical record. MDS Nurse #2 confirmed Resident #32 had a documented fall with a skin tear on 1/3/25 and should have been coded as a fall with minor injury. She stated it was 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 before2025-05-07 · 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, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop an individualized person-centered care plan in the area of smoking for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for smoking (Resident #58). The findings included: Resident #58 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included wedge compression fracture of first lumbar vertebra, hypertension, and pain. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #58's cognition was intact. The MDS indicated Resident #58 used tobacco. Review of Resident #58's active care plan, dated 04/30/25, revealed no care plan related to smoking. An observation and interview were conducted on 05/06/25 from 8:55 AM through 09:20 AM with Resident #58 in the smoking area. She safely lit, smoked, discarded ashes and disposed of cigarette safely. No concerns were observed with Resident #58 while she was smoking. She stated she had smoked since she was admitted to the facility. An interview was conducted on 05/07/25 at 8:32…

  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 before2025-05-07 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
  Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
  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 transcribe the correct route of medication administration for 1 of 1 resident reviewed with gastric feeding tube (Resident #2). The findings included: Resident #2 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebrovascular disease, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Resident #2 had recently been hospitalized from [DATE] through 4/6/25. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #2 had severely impaired cognition, had a feeding tube and received all nutrition and fluids via a feeding tube. Review of Resident #2's active care plan, last reviewed 4/25/25, included a focus area for being at risk for nutrition and dehydration due to nothing by mouth (NPO) status and tube feed. The active May 2025 physician orders included the following orders: - An order dated 4/6/25 read; NPO - An order dated 4/6/25 for Briviact (an antiseizure medication) 10 milligrams (mg) per milliliter…

  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 · Ecited before2024-06-26 · tag F0641 — pattern
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments in the areas of trach care (Resident #17), prognosis (Resident #47), discharge (Resident #63), and medication (Resident #41 and #55). This was for 5 of 17 residents reviewed for MDS accuracy. The findings included: 1. Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included a tracheostomy. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #17 ' s cognition was intact. The special treatments, procedures, and programs section for tracheostomy care while a resident was not coded. Review of Resident #17 ' s active orders revealed an order that read in part to change inner cannula of trach daily for infection control, the medication administration record (MAR) was signed daily as being completed. Another order read to change trach ties weekly on Tuesdays for infection control, the MAR was signed every Tuesday as being completed. An interview was conducted on…

  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 · Ecited before2024-06-26 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, and staff interviews the facility failed to discard opened food items ready for use within 7 days of opening in 1 of 1 walk-in refrigerators and in 1 of 2 reach-in refrigerators. The facility also failed to label, and date opened food items in 1 of 1 walk-in refrigerators and in 1 of 2 reach-in refrigerators. This practice had the potential to affect food served to residents. The findings included: Observations during the initial tour of the main kitchen with Dietary Cook/Aide #1 on 06/23/24 at 10:55 AM, revealed the following: a. In the walk-in refrigerator the following items were observed. -32 oz pack (3/4 full) sliced Virginia baked ham-no open date. -21 hot dogs in a zip lock bag with an opening date of 06/11/24. -Twelve 8 ounce (oz) bowls with a yellow pudding like substance in them that were not dated and were not covered. - Forty-eight 8 oz bowls with a yellow pudding like substance in them were not dated. b. In the reach-in refrigerator #1 the following items were observed. -2 pounds of sliced turkey with no open date. -1/4 of quart sized zip lock bag…

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

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-06-26 · tag F0636 — isolated
  Assess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
  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 interviews, the facility failed to complete an annual comprehensive assessment within the required time frame (Resident #29) for 1 of 15 sampled residents. The findings included: Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #29's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments revealed an admission MDS completed on 5/4/24, and Quarterly MDS assessments completed on 8/4/23, 11/4/23, 2/4/24 and 5/6/24. The annual assessment was not completed. On 6/25/24 at 11:10 AM, an interview occurred with the MDS Nurse #1. She reviewed the MDS assessments that had been completed for Resident #29 and stated that the quarterly MDS assessment that was completed on 5/6/24 should have been an annual assessment. She further explained the facility had recently transitioned to a new Electronic Medical Record (EMR) system in April 2024 and felt it was an oversight due to the transition that another quarterly assessment was completed instead of an annual assessment. The Administrator 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 Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-26 · 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 comprehensive care plan for the presence of a nephrostomy tube (a tube that let's urine drain from the kidney through an opening in the skin on the back-Resident #2), and a skin condition (Resident #34). This was for 2 of 15 resident care plans reviewed. The findings included: 1) Resident #2 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She was hospitalized from [DATE] to 2/29/24 and found to have a complex urinary tract infection due to a kidney stone. At that time a left sided nephrostomy tube was placed. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #2 had severe cognitive impairment. She was coded with an indwelling catheter. Review of the active care plan, last revised 6/14/24, did not include the presence of a nephrostomy tube. On 6/25/24 at 10:50 AM, an interview occurred with MDS Nurses #1 and #2 who reviewed Resident #2's active care plan. They confirmed a care plan was not developed 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-06-26 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolated
  Ensure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to change a gastrostomy tube dressing site that was ordered to be completed daily for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for gastrostomy tubes (Resident #31). The findings included: Resident #31 was admitted to the facility 1/9/2024 with diagnoses including stroke and gastrostomy tube for feeding. Resident #31's medical record was reviewed, and a physician order dated 4/25/2024 ordered for daily gastrostomy site dressing to be completed by cleaning the site and applying clean gauze. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] assessed Resident #31 was severely cognitively impaired, and he received tube feeding nutrition daily. The treatment record for Resident #31 indicated the gastrostomy tube dressing change had been changed on 6/22/2024 and 6/23/2024. Resident #31 was observed on Monday 6/24/2024 at 2:05 PM. A gastrostomy tube with a dressing was noted and the dressing was dated Friday 6/21/2024. The gastrostomy dressing…

  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 · D2024-06-26 · 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 record review, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement the facility's policy for enhanced barrier precautions for 1 of 11 residents reviewed for infection control (Resident #31). The findings included: The facility infection control policy with a revision date of 4/15/2024 read, in part: Enhanced Barrier Precautions are intended to prevent the transmission of multi-drug resistant organisms via contaminated hand and clothing of healthcare workers to high-risk residents. Resident #31 was observed in bed on 6/23/2024 at 10:52 AM. There was no sign on the door indicating EBP were in place and no caddy with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) outside of his door. Resident #31 was noted to have tube feeding (on hold) and a wound dressing was noted to his left lower leg. Incontinence care for Resident #31 was observed with Nursing Assistant (NA) #1 and NA #2 on 6/24/2024 at 2:03 PM. NA #1 and NA #2 performed hand hygiene and applied gloves but did not don gowns to provide incontinence care to Resident #31. When asked if providing incontinence care 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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP — 126 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 28 rows in the source record cover these 18 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.

12 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

About 74% 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 $1.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 22% 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