No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Good Samaritan Society - Beatrice

401 S 22nd Street, Beatrice, NE 68310 · Non profit - Corporation · 80 certified beds · (402) 228-3304 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (402) 228-3304 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Behavioral-health or dementia-care citation — no harm found (F0758)
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (16% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
Worth asking about
  • about 20% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies

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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
Pharmacy
910 E Court St · (402) 223-4779 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
1815 Court St · (402) 223-5207 · Call to confirm hours
Park
1628 Scott St · Typically dawn to dusk

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 2 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 5 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 held steady at 3 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.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased12.3%19.0%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight3.4%5.1%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%1.4%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection5.2%2.8%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms2.1%4.3%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained1.5%0.3%0.1%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury5.6%4.5%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened15.9%18.2%16.1%typical
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication26.8%19.3%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine96.3%96.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers8.3%4.0%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control24.1%25.9%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table22.9%20.7%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.0%2.0%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine31.6%75.9%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission10.0%20.7%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit5.7%11.4%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.161.811.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.701.921.80typical

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.

48.0% 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 124 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

48.0%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
8.0%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
55.8%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.27U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.14hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.11hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 55.8% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 77 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 39% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF48.0%CMS range 40.5–54.451.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF8.0%CMS range 5.2–11.710.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge55.8%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge46.8%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge58.4%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified96.4%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay3.6%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened4.8%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.8%CMS range 3.9–11.97.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.901.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.54
RN hours/ resident / day
1.21
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.99
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.74
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.29
RN hoursweekends
16.1%
Total nursing turnover
25.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 80 beds and averages 61.4 residents a day — about 77% occupied, or roughly 19 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.74 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.54 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.99 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 3.24 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.95 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.64 to 0.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 16% 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

6
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-01-27)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2024-09-24)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · F2026-01-27 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespread
    Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    The facility failed to follow the meatloaf recipe during meal preparation, this had the potential to affect all residents that eat food served from the kitchen. The facility census was 60 at the time of the survey. An observation on 01/22/2026 at 11:16 AM revealed Lead [NAME] (LC) beginning to prepare meatloaf to be served the following day. LC removed 20 lbs. (pounds) of ground beef from the walk in refrigerator, applied gloves, removed the ground beef from the outer wrap, removed gloves and washed hands with soap and water. LC then referred to recipe.A record review of the meatloaf recipe with a copyright date of 2025 revealed the ingredients needed to make 70 servings:Liquid eggs: 2 3/4 cups Milk: 1 QT (quart) 3 TBS (tablespoon) Ground beef: 17.5 lbs.Tomato paste 1 lbs. 1 ozGarlic minced 8.5 oz (ounce)Salt 1 Tbs. 1 tsp. (teaspoon)Onion 1 lbs. 1ozBreadcrumbs 2 lbs.Pepper: 3/4 tsp Directions:1. In mixer bowl, combine eggs and milk with paddle at medium speed 1-2 minutes or until combined.2. Add beef, tomato paste, garlic, salt, pepper, onions and breadcrumbs to egg mixture. Mix 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-01-27 · 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

    Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.11(E)Based on observation, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain and serve foods at a safe and appetizing temperature to prevent the potential for food borne illnesses on unit 1. This had the potential to affect all 16 residents on unit 1 who eat from the kitchen.Findings:An observation on 01/26/2026 at 11:25 AM revealed a [NAME] (C-B) transferring an insulated food cart from the main kitchen to the 100's dining room. The cart was filled with stainless steel pans of the different hot food items to be served for lunch. C-B placed each pan on the stream table, covering the pans with a lid.C-B then took the temperature of each hot food item using the facility's thermometer which revealed:The Breaded Chicken was 150 degrees FahrenheitThe Pureed Chicken was 115 degrees FahrenheitThe Potato Casserole was 160 degrees FahrenheitThe Un-breaded chicken was 140 degrees FahrenheitThe Peas were 140 degrees FahrenheitThe Cauliflower was 140 degrees FahrenheitC-B then went to the small unit kitchen to obtain the drinks for each…

    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 · E2026-01-27 · tag F0923 — pattern
    Have enough outside ventilation via a window or mechanical ventilation, or both.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12.007.04(D) Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the ventilation (the provision of fresh air to a room, building, etc.) systems were operational in seven resident bathrooms (rooms 120, 301, 303, 305, 308, 309, and 313) out of 24 resident rooms sampled. The facility census was 60. Findings are: Observations on the initial tour on 1.21.2026 at 9:30 AM revealed the bathroom ventilation was not functioning in seven resident rooms (rooms 120, 301, 303, 305, 308, 309, and 313). Observations during a facility tour on 1.26.2026 at 10:40 AM with Water Management (WM) revealed the bathroom ventilation was not functioning in seven resident rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], 301, 303, 305, 308, 309, and 313). In an interview on 1.26.2026 at 10:40 AM with the WM, it was confirmed the bathroom ventilation was not functioning in seven resident rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], 301, 303, 305, 308, 309, and 313) and it should be. WM confirmed the company that…

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

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-01-27 · tag F0628 — isolated
    Provide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 175 NAC 12-006.09(G)(i)Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to complete a discharge summary for Resident 67(A) after a medical appointment with a direct admission to the hospital. Resident 69 (B) was transferred to hospital and did not return to facility. This affected 2 out of 2 residents with a closed record review. The facility reported a census of 60.Findings are: A Record review of Resident 67's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed a primary diagnoses of sepsis (an extreme, life-threatening response to an infection), severe thrombocytopenia (a condition where the blood has very few platelets, causing prolonged bleeding), cirrhosis of the liver with ascites (permanent scaring of the liver causing a buildup of fluid in the abdomen). Record review of Resident 67's admission Record revealed an admission date to the facility of 10/16/2025. Record reviews of Resident 67's Electronic Medical Record (EMAR) revealed no documentation of a transfer notice or a discharge summary that…

    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 before2026-01-27 · 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 Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09(H)(vi)(3)(g)Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to obtain a doctor's order for a continuous positive airway pressure machine (CPAP, a bedside device that uses mild air pressure to keep airways open during sleep) for one (Resident 2) of one sampled resident. The facility census at the time of the survey was 60. Findings are:Observations of Resident 2's room on 01/21/2026 at 12:42 PM revealed a CPAP machine on the bedside table with a CPAP mask in the drawer and the water chamber 1/4 full of water. Record review of Resident 2's admission Record revealed an admission date to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (a sleep disorder where the airway becomes blocked or narrowed resulting in a brief loss of breathing). Record review of Resident 2's order summary revealed no order for pressure settings for the CPAP machine. Record review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated comprehensive…

    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 · Dcited before2026-01-27 · 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

    Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.18Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to follow infection control practices during catheter care for 2 Residents (Resident 4 and Resident 12) out of 2 observed for catheters, and during wound care for 2 Residents (Resident 12 and Resident 19) out of 5 observed for wound care. The facility census was 60.Findings are: A record review of the facility's Hand Hygiene policy last reviewed 11/13/2025 revealed that when using alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) for hand hygiene (HH- a general term that applies to either handwashing or applying hand sanitizer to prevent the spread of disease causing organisms) the staff member should apply enough ABHR to one palm, then rub hands together, covering all surfaces of the hands and fingers until hands are dry, which should take 15 to 20 seconds. When washing the hands with soap and water, the staff member should wet their hands and apply soap, then rub hands together briskly, covering all surfaces of the hands, fingers, and wrists for at least 15 to 20 seconds. The policy…

    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 · Fcited before2024-09-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    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

    Licensure Reference Number 12-006.11E Based on observations, record review and interviews; the facility failed to change gloves and perform hand hygiene for 20 seconds to prevent potential food born illness. This had the potential to affect all 60 residents who served food from the kitchen. The facility identified a census of 60. Findings are: A record review of the policy: Hand Hygiene, dated 03/29/2022, revealed the following: Policy: Hand hygiene should be performed after glove removal. Procedure: HCW will use waterless alcohol-based sanitizer or soap and water to clean their hands: After removing gloves regardless of task completed. Washing with soap and water: -Wet hands first with tepid water, apply amount of soap to hands as recommended by the manufacturer. -Rub hands together briskly for at least 15-20 seconds covering all the surfaces of the ands, fingers and wrists (CDC). -Rinse hands with water and dry thoroughly with a disposable towel or warm-air hand dryer if disposable towel not available. An observation on 9/19/24 at 10:49 AM while in the kitchen with Lead [NAME]…

    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 · Fcited before2024-09-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
    Provide 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 Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 1-005.06(D) Based on record review, observations, and interviews; the facility failed to change gloves and complete hand hygiene during wound care and catheter care for 2 (Resident 8 and 208) out of 5 sampled residents. The facility census was 60. Findings are: A. Record review of Resident 208's admission Record revealed admitted on [DATE]. Record review of Resident 208's MDS (Minimum Data Set, a comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capabilities) dated 9/2/24 revealed in Section C: BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status, a test used to get a quick snapshot of a resident's cognitive function, scored from 0-15, the higher the score, the higher the cognitive function) scored 15. In Section H: indwelling catheter. In Section M: at risk for pressure ulcer, uses pressure reducing devices used in bed and w/c, 3 total number of venous and arterial ulcers present, application of nonsurgical dressings (with or without topical medications) other than to feet, and…

    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 · Dcited before2024-09-24 · 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

    Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12 006.09(H)(vi)(3)a-i) Based on observation, record reviews and interviews; the facility failed to keep Oxygen tubing nasal cannula (piece of the oxygen tubing which is inserted into the nose to deliver oxygen) off the floor and to date the tubing for 1 (Resident 39) of 1 sampled residents. The facility census was 60. Finds are: Record review of Resident 39's admission Record revealed admission date was 12/4/23. Record review of Resident 39's MDS (Minimum Data Set, a comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capabilities) dated 8/21/24 revealed BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status, a test used to get a quick snapshot of a resident's cognitive function, scored from 0-15, the higher the score, the higher the cognitive function) of 15. Observation on 9/18/24 at 10:40 AM Resident 39's O2 (oxygen) tubing was undated and hanging over the oxygen concentrator with the nasal cannula touching the floor. Interview on 9/18/24 at 10:40 AM with Resident 39 revealed Resident 39 wears O2 at night and as needed. Observation on 9/19/24 at 2:00 PM O2…

    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 · D2024-09-24 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolated
    Implement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.12(A)(i-vi) Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide a stop date for the use of as needed antianxiety medication and failed to monitor specific target behaviors for antipsychotic medications and implement non-pharmacological interventions( is a healthcare intervention that doesn't primarily rely on medications) for 4 (Resident 29, 19, 212, and 32) with the sampled size of 5. The facility census was 60. Findings are: A. A record review of a facility policy entitled: Psychotropic Medications-Rehab/Skilled dated 12/06/23 included the following information: Purpose: -To evaluate behavior interventions and alternative before using psychotropic medications. -To eliminate unnecessary psychotropic medications. - Each resident's drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs. An unnecessary drug is any drug when used: without adequate monitoring. -While the use of PRN (as needed) psychotropic medications is not encouraged, if a PRN physician's order…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-10-17 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
    Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.04C3a(6) Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow physician's orders related to notification of blood sugar results for 1 (Resident 163) of 1 sampled resident. The facility identified a census of 62. Findings Are: A record review of the undated demographic information revealed the facility had admitted Resident 163 on 9/18/23 with a primary diagnoses of unspecified intracapsular fracture of the left femur (thigh bone) and unspecified Dementia. A record review of the MDS (Minimum Data Set, a comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capabilities) dated 9/22/23 revealed Resident 163 had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status, a test used to get a quick snapshot of a resident's cognitive function, scored from 0-15, the higher the score, the higher the cognitive function) score of 01 which indicated resident was severely cognitlvey impaired. A record review of the Order Summary list ran on 10/12/23 revealed Resident 163 had the following orders related to Diabetes Mellitus (DM-a diseases that affect how…

    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 · D2023-10-17 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolated
    Ensure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09D8b Based on record review and interview; the facility failed to provide bathing weekly for 1 (Resident 4) of 2 sampled residents. The facility identified a census of 62. Findings are: A record review of form Sanford Policy for Rehab/Skilled and Long Term Care Activities of Daily Living-R/S, LTC reviewed and revised 11/29/22; revealed the purpose was to provide resident with appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve ability in activities of daily living for the well-being of mind, body and soul. The policy identifiied residents were to recieve a bath at least weekly. Record review of Resident 4's undated facesheet revealed Resident 4 was admitted [DATE]. The facesheet revealed Resident 4 had the following diagnoses: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Diabetes Mellitus with Diabetic Polyneuropathy, and Morbid (severe) obesity. A record review of Resident 4's MDS (Minimum Data Set is a standardized assessment tool that measures health status 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-10-17 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.09D2b Based on observation, record review and interview; the facility staff failed to document consistent assessment of characteristics or wound measurements which affected 1 (Resident 40) of 1 sampled resident for pressure ulcer. The facility had a census of 62. Findings are: A record review of Resident 40's admission Record dated 12/15/2022 revealed, Resident 40 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of: pressure ulcer (PU) (injury to skin from prolonged pressure) of sacral region, stage 4, morbid (severe) obesity due to excess calories, nutritional deficiency, reduced mobility and venous insufficiency (poor blood flow). A record review of the MDS (Minimum Data Set) (a tool used to measure a residents health status) dated 9/8/2023 under Section C, Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) (a tool used o identify the cognitive condition of a resident) had a score of 15 which indicated the resident is cognitively intact. A record review of Resident 40's Care Plan dated…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-17 · 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Licensure Reference Number 175 NAC 12-006.17d Based on observations, record review and interview; the facility staff failed to provide handwashing to prevent cross contamination before medication administration for 1 (Resident 6) of 1 sampled resident. The facility census was 62. Findings are: Record review of Resident 6's admission Record dated 9/29/2023 revealed Resident 6 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of: unspecified severe protein-calorie malnutrition, encounter for attention to gastrostomy (a surgical opening into the stomach), abnormal weight loss, nausea, and vomiting. An observation on 10/16/2023 at 11:00 AM of medication administration through gastrostomy tube (GT) for Resident 6 revealed LPN-A performed hand hygiene (HH) at the bathroom sink by first wetting their hands. Then applied soap and lathered their hands with soap for 7 seconds and then rinsed hands under the water. Record review of Hand Hygiene policy dated 3/29/2022 under section Procedure-Washing with soap and water/liquid…

    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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY — 92 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 3 of 53.0≈ chain avg
Health inspection 3 of 52.8+0.2 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 54.0≈ chain avg
Quality measures 3 of 52.8+0.2 vs chain
The other 91 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)
1 of 5Edgebrook Care CenterEdgerton, MN 1 of 5Good Samaritan - IndianolaIndianola, IA 1 of 5Good Samaritan - Red OakRed Oak, IA 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society - AtkinsonAtkinson, NE 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society - BlackduckBlackduck, MN 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society - Grand Island VillageGrand Island, NE 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society - LakotaLakota, ND 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society - Mary Jane BrownLuverne, MN 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society - St Luke's VillageKearney, NE 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society - WindomWindom, MN 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society De SmetDe Smet, SD 1 of 5Good Samaritan Society MillerMiller, SD 1 of 5Salem Lutheran HomeElk Horn, IA 1 of 5Souris Valley Care CenterVelva, ND 1 of 5St Vincent's - A Prospera CommunityBismarck, ND 1 of 5Sunset Drive - a Prospera CommunityMandan, ND 2 of 5Good Samaritan - AtwoodAtwood, KS 2 of 5Good Samaritan - Decatur CountyOberlin, KS 2 of 5Good Samaritan - EsthervilleEstherville, IA 2 of 5Good Samaritan - MansonManson, IA 2 of 5Good Samaritan - OttumwaOttumwa, IA 2 of 5Good Samaritan - WaukonWaukon, IA 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - BottineauBottineau, ND 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - Hastings VillageHastings, NE 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - OakesOakes, ND 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - Park RiverPark River, ND 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - Specialty Care CommunityRobbinsdale, MN 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - St John'sKearney, NE 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - St Martin VillageRapid City, SD 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - SuperiorSuperior, NE 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society - Waconia And Westview AcreWaconia, MN 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society CantonCanton, SD 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society Luther ManorSioux Falls, SD 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society New UnderwoodNew Underwood, SD 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society Sioux Falls CenterSioux Falls, SD 2 of 5Good Samaritan Society Sioux Falls VillageSioux Falls, SD 2 of 5Good Samaritan-LiberalLiberal, KS 2 of 5The Good Samaritan Society-Kissimmee VillageKissimmee, FL 3 of 5Good Samaritan - AlgonaAlgona, IA 3 of 5Good Samaritan - DavenportDavenport, IA

Showing 40 of 91; lowest-rated first.

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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
SANFORDOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF100%since 01/01/2019
THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETYOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF100%since 01/01/2019
BROWN, GEORGEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
DYKHOUSE, DANAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
ENGBRECHT, WESLEYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
GASSEN, WILLIAMIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
GULSVIG, NEILIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
HERSETH SANDLIN, STEPHANIEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
LUNDEEN, MARKIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
MCCAUSLAND, MAUREENIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
MOLBERT, LAURISIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
NORTH, ANDREWIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
SCHIEFFER, KEVINIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
SHULKIN, DAVIDIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
TEIKEN, BRENTIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
VENTLING-HERRMANN, MARNIEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/30/2024
WENZEL, THOMASIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
FLUIT, JOELIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/01/2022
MIDDLETON, AIMEEIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/27/2022
OLSON, NICHOLASIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/08/2024
SCHEMA, NATHANIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2022
DTN STAFFING INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/02/2024
FOCUSONE SOLUTIONSOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/04/2024
GRAPE TREE MEDICAL STAFFING LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/03/2018
ADAMS, CORRENEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/08/2012
DAYTON, ELIZABETHIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/01/2018
MORRISON, TONYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2019
SANDGREN, DEEANDRAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/16/2023
PHARMERICA CORPORATIONOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 02/01/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 62 rows in the source record cover these 29 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

6 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.

$8.5M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+4.3%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.6M
Related-party expense20% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 36%Medicare 8%Other / private 56%

This home reported $1.6M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 20% 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

$261per resident / day
operating cost
$7,944per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$273per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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 NE

Paying with Medicaid

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 Nebraska Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in Nebraska
$8,377/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$9,216/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,350/mo
Assisted living

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 285203. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-27, 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.

What to do next