Harmon Hospital - SNF
2170 East Harmon Ave, Las Vegas, NV 89119 · For profit - Corporation · 10 certified beds · (702) 794-0100 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- the CMS record shows $8,018 in federal fines (most recent 2024-01-10)
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | Not rated |
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 | Not rated |
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 4 to 5 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 who lose too much weight | 5.0% | 5.5% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 12.9% | 1.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 15.0% | 1.9% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 2.0% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 5.0% | 22.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 15.4% | 5.4% | 4.7% | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
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.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 10 beds and averages 6.2 residents a day — about 62% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 8.58 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 4.57 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.90 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 8.34 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 8.68 on weekdays — 4% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 4.66 to 4.34 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-01-10 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure resident identification was verified before administering the medication for 1 of 8 sampled residents. The deficient practice resulted in a medication error and resident's hospitalization compromising the resident's safety and well-being. Findings include: Resident 9 (R9) R9 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including seizures and right-sided weakness. The Facility Report, dated [DATE], documented R9 participated in the activities program when a hospital nurse arrived and administered oral medications to R9 intended for another patient/resident. About 30 minutes later, R9 became unresponsive, leading to a Code Blue (a hospital emergency code used to describe the critical status of a patient/resident) being called. R9 regained consciousness and was then transported to the hospital via emergency medical services (EMS). The Emergency Transport System dated [DATE], documented R9's reason for transfer 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 · Dcited before2026-01-09 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 document review, the facility failed to ensure 1) the dishwasher reached the proper sanitizing temperature for the wash cycle, 2) the storage of ice and ice scoops intended for resident use in a sanitary manor. The deficient practice had the potential to allow bacteria and germs to survive on dishware and bacteria to form on the ice causing foodborne illness and a source of contamination. Findings include: 1) On 01/07/2026 at 8:30 AM, during a tour of the kitchen with the Dietary Manager, the dishwasher temperature gauge registered 100 degrees Fahrenheit ( degrees F) for the wash cycle. The Dietary Manager confirmed the temperature and explained the dishwasher should have reached a minimum of 120 degrees F for the wash cycle. The Dietary Manager indicated the temperature of 120 degrees F was required to ensure bacteria was killed and controlled. The facility policy titled Ware Washing Using Dishwashing Machine, revised 10/15/2025, documented utensils and dishes washed by a mechanical dishwasher were clean and sanitized. Staff were to check 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 · D2026-01-09 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolatedDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure trash was contained and the area surrounding the dumpster was kept clean. The deficient practice had the potential to attract insects and rodents.Findings include: On 01/07/2026 at 8:51 AM, a tour of the dumpster storage area with the Dietary Manager revealed scattered debris on the ground near a dumpster including gloves, Styrofoam cups, and other random debris. The dumpster had a single top opening divided into two independently lifting lids. Half of the left-side lid was missing, leaving part of the dumpster uncovered.The facility policy titled Waste Disposal, revised 10/15/2025, documented waste was disposed of in a manner to prevent transmission of disease, nuisance or breeding place for insects and feeding places for rodents and other mammals. The area around the refuse dumpster was kept clean, odor and rodent free and waste containers were covered and closed.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-09 · 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 interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure an up-to-date and complete Water Management Program (WMP) was maintained to prevent the growth and spread of Legionella bacteria. Findings include:On 1/8/2026, the Infection Preventionist and Regional Operations Plant Director explained the facility followed the Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines for the prevention of Legionella.The facility's WMP contained only a brief description of the building's water path and included a sample diagram from the CDC publication Developing a Water Management Program to Reduce Legionella Growth & Spread in Buildings. The sample diagram included a disclaimer stating it was for illustrative purposes only and not intended to be relevant to all buildings. A current, facility-specific water system diagram could not be located. The most recent document titled Water Safety Management Assessment & Plan was dated 11/22/2021. The Regional Operations Plant Director reported the facility had a contract with a water management vendor and that water testing for Legionella 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 · D2025-01-30 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure an indication for a midline (an intravenous access inserted into a vein for administration of medications) was obtained from a physician for a resident who was admitted with a midline for 1 of 7 sampled residents (Resident 7). The deficient practice placed the resident at risk for infection related to the invasive medical device. Findings include: Resident 7 (R7) R7 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including cellulitis of left foot and diabetes mellitus. On 01/28/2025 at 9:14 AM, R7 was awake and alert in bed. A left upper arm single lumen midline was observed covered with transparent dressing dated 01/22/2025. R7 indicated being on intravenous (IV) antibiotics while in the hospital for a left foot infection. R7 indicated the midline had not been used at this facility and no staff or provider had discussed whether the midline needed to be maintained or discontinued. There were no IV supplies (pole, pump, empty…
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 · D2025-01-30 · tag F0730 — isolatedObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure an annual performance evaluation was completed for 3 of 6 Certified Nursing Assistants (Employee 3, 9, and 11). The failure to complete the performance evaluation of the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) in a timely manner could potentially compromise the quality of care provided to the residents. Findings include: The Personnel Records Checklist dated 01/29/2025 documented the following: Employee 3 was hired on 11/22/2019 as CNA. Employee 3 lacked an annual performance evaluation. Employee 9 was hired on 08/19/2019 as CNA. Employee 9 lacked an annual performance evaluation. Employee 11 was hired 09/13/2019 as CNA. Employee 11 lacked an annual performance evaluation. On 01/29/2025 at 11:39 AM, the Human Resources Director confirmed the Personnel Records Checklist was accurate and the three CNAs listed lacked an annual performance evaluation. The Human Resources Director acknowledged an annual performance evaluation should have been completed. On 01/30/2025 at 11:55 AM, the Administrator acknowledged CNA annual…
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 before2025-01-30 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 document review, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a sanitary manner, food items were stored in accordance with facility protocol and expired food items were discarded. The deficient practice had the potential to place residents at risk for food borne illnesses. Findings include: On 01/28/2025 at 7:40 AM, a tour of the kitchen revealed the following concerns: 1. A tin can with no handle was observed inside a bulk container of flour. The Kitchen [NAME] indicated the bulk container had a 50-pound (lb.) capacity and contents must be accessed with a scooper with handle to prevent hand contamination. Furthermore, the hand scooper must never be left inside the bulk container for sanitary reasons. 2. A commercial-size double oven with five racks each was described by the [NAME] to be very dirty, with heavy grease build-up on oven doors and racks and crumbs on oven floor. The [NAME] indicated the oven should be cleaned at least once a week but had not been cleaned for two weeks due to resignation of the former dietary manager two…
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 · D2024-01-10 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — isolatedHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to: 1) act promptly on a concern voiced by the resident council, and 2) demonstrate a response and rationale for resident concerns was communicated back to the members of the resident council. The deficient practices had the potential to adversely affect all residents residing in the facility skilled nursing unit. Findings include: On 01/10/2024, review of the past six months of resident council meeting minutes revealed the following: The Resident Council Meeting Minutes form dated 06/29/2023 revealed four residents had attended. The residents had voiced a concern there were insufficient food and evening snacks provided. The form lacked documented evidence of action taken or of the communication of the rationale to members of the resident council. The Resident Council Meeting Minutes form dated 07/20/2023 revealed three residents had attended. The residents had voiced a concern there was not enough food for dinner and a need for more evening snacks. The form lacked documented evidence of action…
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 · D2024-01-10 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the availability of medication, and the pharmacy provided the scheduled medications as ordered for 1 of the 10 sampled residents (Resident 5). This deficient practice posed the potential for adverse health effects, compromised treatment outcomes, and an increased likelihood of medication-related complications. Findings include: Resident 5 (R5) R5 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including epilepsy and acute embolism. A Physician order dated 11/16/2023, documented Apixaban (Eliquis) 5 milligrams (mg) by mouth twice daily for deep vein thrombosis. On 01/10/2024 at 8:05 AM, during medication pass, a Registered Nurse (RN) prepared R5's medications except Apixaban mg. An RN indicated Apixaban was unavailable and would follow up with the pharmacy. An RN indicated there was no emergency medication dispenser on the skilled nursing facility (SNF) side but only in the hospital, which the nurses had no access to. An RN…
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 · D2024-01-10 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 document review, the facility failed to ensure their medication error rate was not five percent (%) or greater when five errors were identified with 29 opportunities observed, resulting in an error rate of 17.24%. Failure to reduce the medication error rate to less than 5% could lead to an adverse drug reaction from an overdose or underdose, which can cause harm or injury to the resident. Findings include: Resident 5 (R5) R5 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including epilepsy and acute embolism. A Physician order dated 11/16/2023, documented Apixaban (Eliquis) 5 milligrams (mg) by mouth twice daily for deep vein thrombosis. On 01/10/2024 at 8:05 AM, during medication pass, a Registered Nurse (RN) prepared R5's medications except Apixaban 5 mg. An RN indicated Apixaban was unavailable and would follow up with the pharmacy. An RN indicated there was no emergency medication dispenser on the skilled nursing facility (SNF) side but only in the hospital, which…
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
$8,018 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,018 — penalty dated 2024-01-10
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 FUNDAMENTAL HEALTHCARE — 66 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 | 5 of 5 | 2.4 | +2.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 2.5 | +2.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
The other 65 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 65; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| THI OF NEVADA LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 08/30/2003 |
| WILKINS, DEANA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/23/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 3 rows in the source record cover these 2 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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.
What families pay in NV
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 Nevada 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 295048. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-09, 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.