CareOne At Hanover Township
101 Whippany Road, Whippany, NJ 07981 · For profit - Corporation · 94 certified beds · (973) 599-7500 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (22% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- 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
- the CMS record shows $59,832 in federal fines (most recent 2025-10-29)
- 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)
- about 24% 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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 2 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
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 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.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 19.1% | 8.7% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.7% | 4.6% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.5% | 0.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.8% | 0.8% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 5.4% | 12.1% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.6% | 2.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 15.1% | 8.2% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.7% | 18.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.6% | 97.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.7% | 5.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.7% | 15.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 17.8% | 12.7% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.6% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 57.9% | 80.1% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.6% | 24.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.1% | 8.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.65 | 2.07 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.72 | 1.11 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
60.9% 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 280 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 62.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 108 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 0.53 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 84% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 25% 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
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 60.9%CMS range 54.7–67.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 8.4%CMS range 6.3–12.1 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 62.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 52.8% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 53.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 92.7% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 93.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.8% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 8.9%CMS range 5.9–12.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.14 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 94 beds and averages 72.4 residents a day — about 77% occupied, or roughly 22 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 3.85 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.72 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.14 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 3.58 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.96 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.80 to 0.51 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 22% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
19 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-01-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, policy review and review of manufacturer's instruction, the facility failed to sanitize the glucometer, that were used for more than one resident, before and after each resident's use. The facility failed to properly sanitize the glucometer used on three (Resident (R)124, R17 and R36) residents from a sample of 28 residents. On 01/24/24 at 8:01 PM, the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) were notified that an Immediate Jeopardy existed at F880-J Infection Control due to the failure to sanitize multi-use glucometer between residents per manufacturer's instructions. The facility provided an acceptable Removal Plan which included retraining and ensuring competency of all Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) and Registered Nurses (RNs) on the use and sanitization of glucometers. The nurses were trained on the facility's policy and manufacturer's instructions. Through interviews with facility staff, observations of glucose testing, and review of staff in-services, the survey team verified implementation and removed the Immediate…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2025-10-29 · tag F0694 — isolatedProvide for the safe, appropriate administration of IV fluids for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Complaint # 2569488 Based on interviews, record reviews, and facility policy reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain a physician's order to ensure consistent provision of a customized Total Parenteral Nutrition (TPN; a unique mix of proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, minerals, and fluids delivered intravenously (IV; delivered directly into the bloodstream through a vein) for 48 hours which included 50 milliequivalents (meq) of Potassium Chloride (KCl), as well as interruption of the TPN (greater than 12 hours of missed hydration) which resulted in Resident #1's hospitalization for electrolyte abnormalities, that included severe hypokalemia (low potassium level), metabolic alkalosis (caused by volume depletion) and acute kidney injury. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for parenteral fluid administration and was evidenced by the following: Reference: According to the manufacturer's specifications for Potassium Chloride injection under Clinical Pharmacology included that Potassium is concerned with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2024-01-27 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide 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 Based on observation, interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who entered the facility without a pressure ulcer received care and services to prevent the development of a pressure ulcer for one (Resident (R) 68) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers in a total sample of 28. This failure caused R68 to develop an unstageable sacral pressure ulcer. Additionally, after the development of the unstageable pressure ulcer, the facility staff failed to turn and reposition two of three residents (R68 and R17) and failed to use a low air loss pressure mattress as ordered to promote healing of R68's pressure ulcer. Findings include: Review of R68's admission Record, located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab, revealed an admission date of 12/21/23 with diagnosis of malignant neoplasm of the bone, unstageable pressure ulcer of the sacral region with an onset date of 12/29/23. Review of R68's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), located in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2024-01-27 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received appropriate treatment and services to prevent a decline in range of motion for one of two residents (Resident (R) 1) sampled for mobility in a sample of 28 residents. This failure caused the resident to develop a contracture of her right hand. Findings include: During an observation on 01/22/24 at 11:15 AM, 01/23/24 at 12:27 PM, and 01/24/24 at 8:26 AM, R1 was observed to have right-sided weakness and a contracture to her right hand. No splint or similar device was noted during these observations. Review of R1's admission Record, located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab, revealed R1 was admitted to the facility with diagnosis of hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side. Review of R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), located in EMR under the MDS tab with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/03/23 revealed R1's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of nine out of 15,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2024-01-27 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate the falls for two Residents (R)39 and R76) from a sample of 28 residents. R 39 fell and sustained a hip fracture requiring surgical intervention. The facility failed to investigate the cause of the fall that caused the hip fracture. Additionally, the facility failed to lock the bed's wheels when transferring R76 back to the bed resulting in R76 sustaining a fall. Findings include: 1. Interview on 01/22/24 at 1:10PM, R39's family member (FM2) revealed the resident sustained a fall last March which required surgical repair. Review of R39's admission Record located in the electronic medical record (EMR) Profile tab revealed the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included anoxic brain damage cognitive communication deficit, dementia, cerebral infarct, and fall history. Review of R39's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 01/07/23 located in the EMR MDS tab revealed the resident was assessed to have Brief Interview for Mental…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-04-16 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide 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 observations, interviews, record review, and review of other facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services in accordance with professional standards to ensure a.) provision of routine medication for administration (Resident #267) b.) accurate administration of medication for Resident #3, c.) documentation of removal of a controlled dangerous substance (narcotic; with high potential for drug diversion) medication from inventory, maintained accountability, and accurate reconciliation of Resident #43 and #50's narcotic medications, that was identified during the medication storage inspection of 2 of 2 medication carts. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 4/14/25 at 8:13 AM, the surveyor observed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #1) begin to prepare 8 medications for Resident #267. The medications included a physician's order of 550 milligrams (mg) Rifamaxin (Xifaxan), give 1 tablet by mouth two (2) times a day for hepatic encephalopathy (a brain dysfunction caused by liver dysfunction). The order was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-16 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain the call bell within reach of the resident and ensure that the side rail padding was in place. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 19 residents reviewed for accommodation of needs (Resident #52), and was evidenced by the following: On 4/16/25 at 10:18 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #52 in bed, with his/her eyes open. Resident #52 did not respond to the surveyor's greeting. The surveyor observed that the resident's call bell (a bell used to summon staff for assistance) was not visible. The surveyor also observed that the resident's padding to the right upper half siderail was not placed correctly and was hanging down onto the floor. The surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #52. A review of the admission Record reflected that Resident #52 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to; epilepsy, diabetes mellitus, and cognitive communication deficit. A review of the Physician Order Summary…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-16 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, and homelike environment. This deficient practice was identified for 2 of 19 residents (Resident # 18 and # 19) and was evidenced by the following: 1.On 4/15/25 at 11:35 AM, during an interview with the surveyor, Resident #18 stated his/her privacy curtain was soiled, and it was very upsetting as this was his/her home and that he/she liked things to be nice and clean. At that time, the surveyor observed that the privacy curtain was soiled with several brown stains. The surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #18. A review of the admission Record reflected Resident #18 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to; diabetes mellitus and repeated falls. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool, dated 1/19/25, reflected the resident had a brief interview for mental status score of 13 out of 15, which indicated that the resident's cognition was intact. On 4/15/25 at 11:40 AM, the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-16 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, in accordance with federal guidelines for 4 of 19 residents, (Resident #6, #14, #37 and #66). This deficient practice was by the following: Reference: A review of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for Pneumococcal Vaccine Recommendations dated/last reviewed on 10/26/24, included the following. The CDC recommended administration of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV20 or PCV21) at least 1 year for all adults 50 years or older who have received PCV 13 only at any age. 1. On 4/13/25 at 11:07 AM, during the initial tour, the surveyor observed the resident in bed. The resident revealed to the surveyor that they had lived in the facility for about a year, felt depressed at times, and did not like to join activities. The surveyor reviewed Resident #14's medical record. The admission Record…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-27 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
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 update one resident's (R)47) status by completing a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment when R47 was admitted to hospice care on 01/05/24. This failure affected one of five residents reviewed for MDS assessment concerns, in a sample of 28 residents. Findings include: Review of R47's Face sheet found in the Profile tab of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed R47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of malignant cystic neoplasm (bladder cancer). Review of R47's quarterly MDS with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 2/18/23 documented that R47 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 13 out of 15, which indicated mild cognitive impairment. Review of R47's EMR physician's order dated 01/03/24 revealed admit R47 to hospice care. Review of the hospice note dated 01/05/24 found in the MISC tab in the EMR revealed that on 01/05/24, hospice service was initiated by Ascend Hospice. Review of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-27 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, interviews, review of facility policy, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, the facility failed to ensure three residents (Resident (R)4, R14, and R17) out of 28 sampled residents had an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. Findings include: 1. Observation on 01/24/24 at 4:00PM revealed R4 had a nephrostomy tube draining yellow urine in the right flank area. Review of R4's admission Record located in the electronic medical record (EMR) tab Profile revealed the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included calculus (stone) of the ureter and multiple sclerosis. Review of R4's Physician's Orders dated January 2024 located in the EMR tab Orders revealed right nephrostomy tube monitor site every shift. Review of R4's quarterly MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 11/02/23 located in the resident's EMR tab MDS revealed the nephrostomy tube was not listed in the MDS section for appliances in bladder and bowel. 2. Review of R14's admission Record located in the EMR tab Profile revealed the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-27 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to revised/update care plans for two Residents (R )39 and R74 from a sample of 28 residents. The facility failed revised R39's care plan to reflect a fall with a significant injury and R74's care plan regarding tracheotomy care. Findings include: 1. Review of R39's admission Record located in the electronic medical record (EMR) Profile tab revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included anoxic brain syndrome, cognitive communication deficit, dementia, major depressive disorder, and history of falls. Review of R39's Nursing Notes dated 03/02/23 located in the EMR Progress notes tab revealed the resident was readmitted to facility following surgical repair of femur fracture. Review of R39's Care Plan with a revision date of 02/20/23 located in the EMR Care Plan tab did not reflect the resident's fall with a hip fracture that required surgical intervention. Interview on 01/25/24 at 2:30PM, the Minimum Data Set (MDS)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-27 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide 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 interviews and record review the facility failed to update the physician's orders to accurately reflect the respiratory care and services for one resident (R)74 of three residents reviewed for respiratory care and services in the sample of 28 residents Findings include: Review of R74's Face sheet found in the Profile tab of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed R74 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including respiratory failure with hypoxia and cerebral infarction, Review of R74's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed when he was admitted R74 was unable to communicate so there was no BIMS score for cognition and was dependent on a tracheostomy (trach) collar when admitted . Review of R74's undated Order Summary Report found in the Order tab of the EMR revealed R74 was admitted on O2 [oxygen] via aerosolized trach mask at 35% and 10LPM (liters per minute) of oxygen every shift for TDRF (trach dependent respiratory failure). Keep an extra #8 Shiley [brand 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-27 · tag F0847 — isolatedInform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
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 document review, the facility failed to explain to residents the binding arbitration agreement and failed to inform the resident of the right to rescind the agreement within thirty calendar days for three (Resident (R) 224, R225, and R226) of three residents reviewed for arbitration agreement in a total sample of 28 residents. Findings include: Review of an undated copy of admission Agreement, provided to the survey team by the Administrator, with the following, Dispute Resolution and Arbitration embedded, indicated, Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this agreement and brought by the resident, his/her personal representative, heirs, attorneys or the responsible party shall be submitted to binding arbitration by a single arbitrator selected and administered pursuant to the commercial arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association. A claim shall be waived and forever barred if, on the date the demand for arbitration is received, the claim (if…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2021-09-08 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and review of medical records and other pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to: a.) initiate a timely and through investigation for two injuries of unknown origin, and b.) ensure the facility policy for Investigating Injuries and Abuse Investigation and Reporting 1 of 3 residents (Resident #7) reviewed for investigations. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 08/30/21 at 9:48 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #7 lying in bed. The resident was alert and was confused. The surveyor observed a black-blue discoloration located on the left forehead. Upon surveyor interview, Resident # 7 was unable to describe how the black and blue discoloration occurred to his/her left forehead. The surveyor reviewed the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) which revealed the following: The admission Record (AR) indicated that Resident #7 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses which included, but was not limited to, pulmonary fibrosis (a condition in which the lungs become scarred over time),…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2021-09-08 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure 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 medical records, it was determined that the facility failed to provide physician ordered treatments, consistent with professional standards of clinical practice. This deficient practice was identified for 2 of 17 residents reviewed (Residents #34 and #23) and was evidenced by the following: Reference: New Jersey Statutes, Title 45, Chapter 11, Nursing Board, The Nurse Practice Act for the state of New Jersey states; The practice of nursing as a registered professional nurse is defined as diagnosing and treating human responses to actual or potential physical and emotional health problems, through such services as case finding, health teaching, health counseling, and provision of care supportive to or restorative of life and well being, and executing medical regimes as prescribed by a licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist: Reference New Jersey Statutes, Title 45, Chapter 11, Nursing Board, The Nurse Practice Act for the state of New Jersey…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2021-09-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and review of other pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe environment to prevent the potential spread of infection by failing a.) to utilize the proper personal protective equipment (PPE) for residents on transmission-based precautions (TBP) for 4 of 5 (Resident #39, #210, #311, #29) resident reviewed for TBP, and b.) to adhere to infection control practices for hand hygiene to prevent the spread of infection during observation of a wound care treatment for 1 of 1 (Resident #29) reviewed. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: A. 1.) On 08/30/21 at 9:24 AM, the facility informed the survey team that residents who were positive for COVID-19 were located on the first floor in a Red Zone area. The facility further stated the PPE required in the COVID-19 Red Zone were a reusable PPE gown, N95 mask with a surgical mask on top of it, and eye protection. On 08/30/21 at 10:08 AM, during tour, the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-09-08 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide 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 2. During the initial tour on 08/30/21 at 9:30 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #18 in bed, with oxygen in place. The Oxygen was connected to a device delivering humidified air via nasal cannula. The setting on the device was 2 liters. The humidifier bottle was almost empty and had a sticker dated 07/24/21. The connected tubing was not labeled or dated. On 08/31/21 at 7:40 AM the surveyor observed Resident #18 sitting in the room, Resident #18 told the surveyor that she had a bad night and had to use the oxygen almost all night. On 09/01/21 at 9:25 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #18 sitting in a chair in the room eating breakfast. The Oxygen tubing was noted on the bed underneath the pillows, not labeled or dated. The sticker on the humidifier bottle still dated 07/24/21. A review of Resident #18's clinical record revealed the following: Resident #18 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included shortness of breath, Acute kidney failure, diabetes mellitus and asthma. On the most recent Minimum…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-09-08 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that medications received from residents, specifically a controlled schedule IV drug, were verified and accounted for daily by incoming and outgoing staff. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of the 3 medication carts reviewed and was evidenced by the following: During the Medication Pass Administration observation on 08/31/21 at 9:30 AM, the surveyor conducted a narcotic count with the Registered Nurse (RN ) responsible for the medication cart on the high side. The surveyor observed 2 bottles of medication stored in the locked narcotic compartment. The medication was labeled as Tramadol 50 milligrams (mg) and Klonopin 0.5 mg. The medication belonged to Resident #10 who still resided at the facility and were brought to the facility by the resident on admission. The declining inventory count was accurate for the Klonopin. The count was 25 and verified with the RN. The nurse had been using the Klonopin received from home when the Klonopin from the facility pharmacy had not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$59,832 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $34,512 — penalty dated 2025-10-29
- $25,320 — penalty dated 2024-01-27
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CAREONE — 37 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 3.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 36 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CARE ONE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 04/30/2012 |
| DES 2009 GST TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 18% | since 01/25/2017 |
| DES HOLDING CO., INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 24% | since 04/30/2012 |
| DES-C 2009 GRAT | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 21% | since 04/30/2012 |
| STRAUS, DANIEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 38% | since 04/30/2012 |
| BARUCH, DAVID | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2021 |
| CARE VIRGINIA MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $3.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 24% 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. 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
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
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.
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 315511. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-16, 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.