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

Foothill Acres Rehabilitation & Nursing Center

39 East Mountain Road, Hillsborough, NJ 08844 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 200 certified beds · (908) 369-8711 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (908) 369-8711 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Behavioral-health or dementia-care citation — no harm found (F0758)
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
Worth asking about
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (19) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
  • its independent health-inspection 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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Urgent care / clinic
751 Route 206, Ste 100 · (908) 359-8613 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
220 Triangle Rd · (908) 369-1762 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
17 Estate Rd · (201) 903-6007 · Call to confirm hours
Park
379 S Branch Rd · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 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 fell from 4 to 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 increased7.7%8.7%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight5.3%4.6%5.4%typical
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.6%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%0.8%2.0%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms3.6%12.1%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury0.7%2.3%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened5.9%8.2%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication21.4%18.8%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%97.2%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.4%5.4%4.7%typical
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control3.2%15.6%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table34.7%12.7%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.6%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine96.3%80.1%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission22.3%24.9%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit5.9%8.1%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.232.071.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.691.111.80better

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.

61.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 308 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

61.1%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.0%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
67.2%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.26U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.12hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.11hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.03hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 67.2% 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 192 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 37% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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.

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 SNF61.1%CMS range 55.1–65.251.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.0%CMS range 7.9–12.610.7%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 discharge67.2%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 discharge63.5%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 discharge56.8%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 identified100.0%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 stay0.8%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 worsened1.2%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 hospitalization6.5%CMS range 4.6–9.17.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.881.02Oct 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

0.77
RN hours/ resident / day
0.81
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.59
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.17
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.65
RN hoursweekends
39.3%
Total nursing turnover
45.2%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 200 beds and averages 173.4 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 27 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 4.17 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.77 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.59 is at or above 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 3.84 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.30 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.81 to 0.65 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 39% 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

16
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-03-07)
3
at the previous standard inspection (2023-02-23)

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.

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 · F2025-03-07 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespread
    Dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure dumpster lids were kept closed and trash was not on the ground in the dumpster area. This failure had the potential to cause pest infestation or spread of infection affecting all 158 residents. Findings include: During an initial tour of the kitchen on 03/04/25 beginning at 10:42 AM, conducted along with the Dietary Manager (DM) and Regional Food Service Director (RFSD), the three trash and one recycling dumpster were observed. The recycling dumpster lid and the lid of the middle trash dumpster were open. The front trash dumpster was over-filled with trash preventing the lid from closing all the way. There was trash on the ground around all the dumpsters. The DM began picking up trash next to the recycling dumpster and disposing of it in the dumpster. During a concurrent interview, the RFSD stated the trash was due for pick up today and confirmed the lid did not close and two dumpsters were open. The DM and RFSD left the dumpster area without closing the open lids. During an observation of the dumpster…

    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 before2025-03-07 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
    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 policy review, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop a person-centered comprehensive plan of care for one of 34 sample residents (Resident (R) 41) regarding a continuous blood glucose monitor; or measurable goals or objectives regarding behaviors for two of seven residents (Resident (R) 60 and R138) reviewed for psychotropic medications. These failures placed the residents at risk of unmet care needs pertaining to glucose management and behavior management. Findings include: 1. During an interview on 03/05/25 at 10:27 AM, R41 revealed she had diabetes. R41 stated she received insulin and the staff administered the insulin. R41 had a Freestyle Libre blood glucose monitor (a continuous blood glucose monitor) that staff used to monitor her blood glucose levels. During an observation of insulin administration for R41 and interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 on 03/06/25 at 12:45 AM revealed R41's blood glucose had been checked earlier; she had a continuous blood…

    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 · E2025-03-07 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — pattern
    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 Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure psychotropic medication efficacy was monitored and failed to ensure PRN (as needed) antianxiety medications had a stop date including a rational for continuing the PRN medication beyond 14 days for eight of eight residents (Resident (R) 23, R28, R38, R42, R60, R61, R138, and R142) reviewed for unnecessary and/or psychotropic medications from a total survey sample of 34 residents. This failure had the potential to affect the ability for a physician to prescribe the lowest possible effective dose of medication. Findings include: 1. Per R28's undated admission Record, located in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/05/21 with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease (a progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions,) Schizophrenia (a serious mental illness that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves,) anxiety…

    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 · E2025-03-07 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — pattern
    Ensure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, menu review, interview, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents who ate in the second-floor dining room received adequate portion sizes according to the menu. This failure had potential to cause hunger, weight loss, or malnutrition for the 28 residents, out a census of 158, who ate their meals in the second-floor dining room and had orders for regular portions with chopped or regular texture. Findings include: Review of the undated Cedar Unit Assignment Sheet, provided on paper by the facility with the residents who ate in the second-floor dining room circled, revealed 15 residents ate in the second-floor dining room from the Cedar unit. Review of the undated Maple Unit Assignment Sheet, provided on paper by the facility with the residents who ate in the second-floor dining room circled, revealed 17 residents ate in the second-floor dining room from the Maple unit. Review of the facility's Diet Type Report, dated 03/07/25 and provided on paper by the Dietary Manager (DM), 31 of the 32 residents who ate in the second-floor dining room had…

    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 · E2025-03-07 · 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 observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure nine cartons of milk were not expired. Though the milk was discarded prior to meal service, the potential receipt of expired milk by nine residents placed these residents at risk of foodborne illness. Findings include: During an initial tour of the kitchen on 03/04/25 at beginning at 10:42 AM, conducted along with the Dietary Manager (DM) and Regional Food Service Director (RFSD), the dairy refrigerator with ready-to-serve items prepared for lunch, located at the tray line in the meat kitchen, was observed. In the dairy refrigerator were eight cartons of milk with a sell by date of 02/17/25 and one carton of milk with a sell by date of 02/12/25. The FSD and DM pulled out the nine expired milks from the refrigerator and discarded them. In a concurrent interview, the FSD stated the milk cartons in the dairy refrigerator had been prepared for use during lunch service for residents who did not prefer a kosher diet. She stated a new shipment had just been received, so she was not aware any of the milks were…

    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 · E2025-03-07 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — pattern
    Make sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure one of four soiled utility rooms (400 Unit) was maintained in a sanitary condition. This failure placed all residents on the 400 Unit at risk for not having a safe and clean homelike environment. Findings include: Observation on 03/04/25 at 11:55 AM of the 400 Unit's soiled utility room revealed the soiled utility room had a bag of trash on the floor next to the trash receptacle. Observation on 03/05/25 at 9:48 AM of the 400 Unit's soiled utility room revealed, Housekeeper (HK) 1 placed a bag of trash on the floor next to the trash receptacle because the trash receptacle appeared full. Observation on 03/05/25 at 9:53 AM of the 400 Unit's soiled utility room revealed two bags of soiled laundry on the floor. During an observation and interview on 03/05/25 at 9:55 AM, the Housekeeping Director (HD) stated there was not supposed to be anything on the floor, it was not acceptable. The HD observed the laundry bin and stated it was not full and picked up the bags of soiled laundry and placed…

    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 · D2025-03-07 · tag F0554 — isolated
    Allow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
    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, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure two residents (Resident (R) 51 and R306) of 36 residents observed in Initial Pool had medications unattended at the bedside only with an assessment for safety and the ability to self-administer medications. These failures placed both residents at risk for overdose, missed medication doses, or misappropriation of medication. Findings include: 1. Review of R36's admission Record, located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab, revealed she admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including post-polio syndrome and hemiplegia affecting the left dominant side. Review or R36's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/30/25, located under the MDS tab of the EMR, revealed she scored 13 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating intact cognition. R36 did not exhibit mood or behavioral symptoms. During an observation on 03/04/25 at 3:54 PM in R36's…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-07 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
    Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
    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, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the call bell was accessible for one of 36 residents (Resident (R) 32) observed in the Initial Pool. This failure placed R32 at risk of injury or distress when he could not access the call bell to alert staff of an emergency or unmet needs. Findings include: Review of R32's admission Record, located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed he admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia and heart disease. Review of R32's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/15/25, located under the MDS tab of the EMR, revealed he scored eight out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating moderately impaired cognition. Per the MDS, R32 did not exhibit mood or behavioral symptoms. R32 had no impairment of his functional range-of-motion in his upper extremities. Review of R32's Care Plan, dated 11/03/23 and located under the Care Plan…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-07 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, staff interview, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, the facility failed to ensure two residents (Resident (R) 142 and R28) out of 34 sample residents had an accurately coded Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. This failure increased the risk of inappropriate care provision to R142 and R28. Findings include: 1. Review of R142's admission Record from the electronic medical record (EMR) Profile tab showed a facility admission date of 11/27/24 with medical diagnoses that included unspecified dementia without behavioral or psychotic disturbance and depression. Review of R142's admission MDS, located under the MDS tab of the EMR, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/04/24 showed R142 was coded for having depression, dementia, and psychotic disorder (other than bipolar). During an interview on 03/06/25 at 9:55 AM regarding the psychotic disorder diagnosis, the MDS Coordinator (MDSC) stated, There was a psych follow progress note in [EMR] on 12/04/24 that did show an active diagnosis of anxiety treated with prn [as needed] Xanax,…

    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 · D2025-03-07 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record reviews and interviews with residents and staff, the facility failed to ensure one of 34 sample residents (Resident (R) 68) was provided with the opportunity to review her care plan, medication list and express her concerns and needs during a quarterly care conference. This failure has resulted in care not being tailored to R68's needs, as the care plan was not updated accordingly. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Interdisciplinary (IDT) Care Plans, revised 03/08/23, outlined the care planning guidelines for the IDT team. These guidelines aim to address the individual physical, mental, emotional, psychological, social, spiritual, and medical needs of each resident. The policy details the following procedures: - An interdisciplinary approach will be followed during the formulation of the comprehensive care plan. The resident and/or family and, /or significant other and the whole interdisciplinary team will meet to discuss problems identified, formulate goals that are measurable and attainable and identify approach to be followed in attaining…

    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
Show the remaining 9 citations
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-07 · 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 observation, interview, and review of manufacturer's instructions, the facility failed to ensure that one of one Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) (LPN1) observed for insulin administration had primed an insulin pen prior to dialing the ordered dose for Resident (R) 41. This failure had the potential to reduce the insulin dose which could have affected R41's blood glucose. Findings include: Review of the manufacturer's INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE HUMALOG ([NAME]-ma-log) KwikPen® (insulin lispro) revealed, Prime before each injection. Priming your Pen means removing the air from the Needle and Cartridge that may collect during normal use and ensures that the Pen is working correctly. If you do not prime before each injection, you may get too much or too little insulin. Observation and interview with LPN1 on 03/06/25 at 12:45 PM during insulin administration for R41 revealed LPN1 retrieved a new Humalog insulin pen from the medication storage room. LPN1 put a new needle on the pen and dialed the pen to six units of…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-07 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide 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

    Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one of five residents (Resident (R) 68) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) out of 34 sampled residents received timely incontinence care. This failure placed the resident at an increased risk for skin breakdown, urinary tract infections, or an undignified existence. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, ADL [activity daily living] policy, revised 09/01/13, reviewed 01/23/25, instructs care givers refer to the nurses' instructions on resident's electronic record for ADL needs and assistance required. Per R68's undated admission Record, located in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed the facility admitted the resident on 04/20/21. Review of R68's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/09/25, located in the resident's EMR under the MDS tab, revealed the facility assessed R68 to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated the resident was cognitively…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-07 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolated
    Provide 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

    Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one of one resident (Resident (R) 79) reviewed for pain out of 34 sampled residents was offered nonpharmacological interventions and documented and followed physician's order to administer pain medication. This failure placed the resident at risk of unmanaged pain and had the potential to negatively affect his quality of life. Findings include: The facility's Pain Management Policy and Procedure, reviewed 01/25/25 and outlined the procedures for assessing and managing pain. These assessments included evaluating pain intensity, location, and duration, as well as observing facial expressions, cries, and moans. Based on these assessments, appropriate care plans for pain management were developed. The pain interventions included the following: - Nursing treatments, for example, facilitating hygiene, initiating relaxation techniques. - Nursing observations, for example, correcting a resident's or family's misconceptions about pain and its treatment and teaching the concept of resident controlled…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-07 · tag F0700 — isolated
    Try different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that residents were evaluated for the need and safety for use of bed rails prior to the installation/use of rails, documented alternatives to bed rails were attempted prior to the use of bed rails, failed to document reasons for failure of alternatives, and failed to advise residents and/or Resident Representatives (RR) of the risks and/or benefits of rail use with informed consent signed prior to the installation of bed rails for three of three residents (Resident (R) 28, R74, and R124) reviewed for bed rail use. This failure had the potential for the resident or the RR to be uninformed of the risks associated with bed rail use and could put the residents at risk for injury or entrapment. Findings include: 1. Review of R74's undated admission Record, located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed he admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, anxiety,…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-07 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
    Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications for return to the pharmacy were kept in a secure location. An inventory had not been completed for those medications to ensure what medications were to be returned to the pharmacy. This failure put residents at risk of accessing and taking those medications not prescribed to them by a physician. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Discarding, Destroying Medication revised 01/25/25, indicated, .individual resident medications supplied in sealed unopened containers may be returned to the issuing pharmacy for disposition provided that: b. All such medications are identified as to lot or control number: and c. The receiving Pharmacist and a Registered Nurse (RN) employed by the facility sign a separate log that lists the resident's name; the name, strength, prescription number (if applicable) and amount of the medication returned; and the date the medication was returned. Review of the facility's policy titled, Storage of Medication revised 01/25/25,…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-07 · 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 Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control and prevention program for one of four residents (Resident (R) 67) observed for pressure ulcers out of 34 sampled residents. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 7 failed to don the required personal protective equipment prior to providing care to R67 who was physician ordered Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). The LPN also failed to perform hand hygiene when changing gloves during wound care. This failure placed the resident at an increased risk of developing a wound infection and/or place other residents at the risk for the transmission of infections. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions revised 03/28/24 revealed . Enhanced Barrier Precautions expanded the use of PPE beyond situations in which exposure to blood and bodily fluid is anticipated and refer to the use of gown and gloves during high-contact resident care…

    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 before2023-02-23 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's use of supplemental oxygen was addressed in the comprehensive care plan for 1 (Resident #277) of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care. Findings included: A review of an Interdisciplinary Care plans policy and procedure, last dated as reviewed in 01/2023, revealed, Policy: This facility believes that each resident is a unique individual with physical, mental, emotional, psychological, social, spiritual and medical needs. An individual who possesses strengths and has a potential for betterment of self, no matter what stage of life they are in. This facility also believes in ensuring quality of life and providing quality care to all its residents through the use of the interdisciplinary care planning process. The policy objectives included, 2. To provide a guideline for all staff to follow in their delivery of care. The policy procedure noted, in part, 4. The care plan will be individualized…

    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 before2023-02-23 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide 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

    Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services to a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) necessary to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for 1 (Resident #328) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for ADLs. Specifically, Resident #328 had facial hair approximately ½-inch long on both sides of their face, jaw, chin, and neck. Findings included: Review of a facility policy titled, Supporting ADLs, issued 04/2016 and last reviewed by the facility in 01/2023, specified, Residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition, grooming and personal and oral hygiene. The policy further specified, 2. Appropriate care and services will be provided for residents who are unable to carry out ADLs independently, with the consent of the resident and in accordance with the plan of care, including appropriate support and assistance with: 1. Hygiene (bathing, dressing, grooming, and oral…

    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 · D2023-02-23 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff administered oxygen at the rate ordered by the physician for 1 (Resident #277) of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care. Findings included: A review of a facility policy titled, Administration of Oxygen, last reviewed by the facility in 01/2023, revealed, Purpose: To prevent hypoxia [absence of enough oxygen in the tissues to sustain bodily function]. Nurses and other certified/trained staff. Procedure: 1. Obtain orders from the primary care physician for: a. Oxygen therapy b. Flow rate or concentration in a cannula, mask, re-breather mask, etc. c. Respiratory therapy consultation, if indicated. d. Pulse oximetry reading if desired. A review of Resident #277's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and unspecified dementia. A review of Resident #277's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE],…

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

    Quality of Life and Care 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.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
SCHON, MORDECHAIIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTORNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 02/24/2003
STEINFELD, YEHUDAIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 02/01/2003

CMS files one row per role, so the 4 rows in the source record cover these 2 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

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.

$17.8M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-9.5%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 56%Medicare 11%Other / private 33%

A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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

$406per resident / day
operating cost
$12,357per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$371per 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 NJ

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 New Jersey Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in New Jersey
$12,775/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$14,448/mo
Nursing home (private)
$8,710/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 315425. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-07, 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