Neurorestorative
3391 N Buffalo Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89129 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 24 certified beds · (702) 800-8860 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (21% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
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) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 whose need for help with daily activities increased | 0.0% | 12.6% | 15.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.6% | 5.5% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.9% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 5.1% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| 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 | 37.0% | 22.2% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.0% | 89.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.8% | 5.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 4.1% | 15.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.0% | 17.1% | 17.1% | better |
* 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.
§ 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.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 24 beds and averages 22.8 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 1 bed typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 7.79 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 3.07 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 4.28 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 7.13 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 8.06 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 3.32 to 2.46 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 21% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-27 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure expired medications were removed and discarded from the active supply in the medication storage room and 1 of 3 medication carts. The deficient practice had the potential to compromise the effectiveness of the medication. Findings include: On 02/25/2025 at 03:15 PM, an inspection of the facility's medication room with a Registered Nurse (RN) was completed. A box of disposable single-dose prefilled tip-lok syringes, each containing one 10 mcg/0.5 mL Hepatitis B vaccine for use from birth through [AGE] years of age was stored on the top shelf inside the medication refrigerator, with an expiration date of 02/17/2025. On 02/25/2025 at 03:27 PM, the RN confirmed the box of disposable single-dose prefilled tip-lok syringes each containing one 10 mcg/0.5 mL Hepatitis B vaccine for use from birth through [AGE] years of age was expired and should have been removed from the active supply to prevent administration. On…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-27 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
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 ensure 1) justification for off-label (the practice of prescribing a drug for a different purpose other than the condition for which the drug was approved) antibiotic use was documented and prolonged antibiotic regimen was re-evaluated by the inter-disciplinary team (IDT) for 4 of 12 sampled residents (Residents 1, 7, 5 and 10) and 2) facility staff and providers were educated on the facility's antibiotic stewardship program (ASP). The deficient practice had the potential to place residents at risk for antimicrobial resistance. Findings include: Implementation of ASP Resident 1 (R1) R1 was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including cerebral palsy and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome with status epilepticus. A physician's order dated 03/23/2024, documented to give Erythromycin Ethyl succinate reconstituted suspension 200 milligrams (mg) per 5 milliliters (ml) or 200 mg/5 ml, give 5 ml via gastrostomy tube (G-tube)…
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 before2024-02-02 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the medication carts were locked when unattended. The deficient practice could have jeopardized the safety of both staff and residents, as unsecured medication carts increase the risk of unauthorized access to potent medications, medication errors, theft, or misuse, posing serious health hazards and compromising the overall well-being of individuals within the facility. Findings include: A facility policy titled Storage and Expiration of Medications, dated 01/01/2013 documented the facility should ensure the resident medications were locked. A pharmacy Consultation Report dated 01/25/2024, documented during the medication and cart review, it was noted the medication cart was left open and unattended. On 02/01/2024 at 3:09 PM, the medication cart in the Oasis hallway was parked, unlocked and unattended. An unsampled resident from Springs Hall wandered in the lobby and Oasis hallway. A Registered Nurse RN) assigned to the medication cart was not around, and there were no other staff in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-02 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were completed for 1) gastrostomy (GT) venting, 2) prophylactic antibiotics and 3) hypertension (HTN) with multiple antihypertensive medications for 3 of 14 sampled Residents (Resident 11, 13 and 22). The deficient practice had a potential for staff not to provide personalized care for residents. Findings include: 1) Resident 11 (R11) was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including pervasive developmental delay and GT dependent. On 01/30/2024 at 9:27 AM, in R11's room at the head of the bed on an intravenous (IV) pole, was a 30 milliliter (ml) open syringe with a tubing attachment. The 30 ml. syringe had no plunger and was attached to a plastic tubing to keep it above the level of the head of the resident. The syringe and the attached tubing contained residual tube feeding (TF) liquid. On 01/30/2024 at 9:39 AM, the registered nurse (RN) indicated the setup is for venting the resident's stomach after a TF…
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 · D2024-02-02 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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, interviews, record reviews, and document reviews, the facility failed to ensure the timely execution or clarification of a physician's order for 1 of 14 sampled residents (Resident 18). The deficient practice could have had the potential for delayed treatment, hindered the completion of the investigation, and compromised the well-being and safety of the resident. Findings include: Resident 18 (R18) R18 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including seizures, traumatic hemorrhage of the cerebrum with loss of consciousness, and tracheostomy status. On 01/31/2024 at 8:30 AM, R18 lay in bed in a supine position with eyes open, non-verbal, and non-interactive. The yearly history and physical dated 10/01/2023, documented R18, who unfortunately suffered a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head and had significant medical complications following the incident. The neurologist documented R18 was non-verbal and non-ambulatory. mostly non-interactive, though R18 would turn head with close…
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 · D2024-02-02 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure splints were applied to hand contractures as ordered and documented for 1 sampled residents (Resident 2), and a physician order for a splint application was obtained for 1 sampled residents (Resident 6). The deficient practice could have the potential to exacerbate existing medical conditions, impede rehabilitation progress, and increase the risk of further complications, such as restricted joint mobility, muscle atrophy, prolonged recovery times, and diminished overall quality of life for the affected residents. Findings include: Resident # 2 (R2) R2 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, tracheostomy status, and reduction deformity of the brain. A physician's order dated 11/16/2023, documented bilateral wrist and hand finger orthosis (WHFO) to be donned daily for up to 4 hours at 1000 (10:00 AM) and doffed at 1400 (2:00 PM) daily for tone management and contracture…
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 · D2024-02-02 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order was obtained for gastrostomy (GT) venting for 1 of 14 sampled residents (Resident 11). The deficient practice has the potential for nursing interventions not being communicated with the physician and preventing the physician from being aware of the current status of the patient. Findings include: Resident 11 (R11) R11 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including pervasive developmental delay and GT dependent. On 01/30/2024 at 9:27 AM, in R11's room at the head of the bed on an intravenous (IV) pole, was a 30 milliliter (ml) open syringe with a tubing attachment. The 30 ml. syringe had no plunger and was attached to a plastic tubing to keep it above the level of the head of the resident. The syringe and the attached tubing contained residual tube feeding (TF) liquid. On 01/30/2024 at 9:39 AM, the registered nurse (RN) indicated the setup is for venting the resident's stomach after a TF regimen and the purpose…
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 before2024-02-02 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
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 ensure prophylactic antibiotics had a justification for usage for 1 of 14 sampled Residents (Resident 13). The deficient practice had the potential to prevent implementation of proper care and monitoring interventions based on the antibiotic justification. Findings include: Resident 13 (R13) R13 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including acute lymphoblastic leukemia and autistic disorder. R13's medical record revealed a physician's order dated 06/10/2023 at 9:00 AM documented, Sulfamethoxazole-Trimethoprim (Bactrim) Oral Suspension 200-40 milligram (mg)/5 milliliter (ml), give 160 mg via gastrostomy (GT) every 12 hours every Saturday, Sunday for Prophylaxis Give 160 mg = 20 ml. Review of physician's progress notes from 06/2023 to current documented, continue with Bactrim 2x per day Saturday/Sunday, no end date per Hematology/Oncology. Review of nursing progress notes 06/2023 to current, lacked documentation as to why R13 was on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-02 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — isolatedKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a surveillance device was in working condition to provide additional visual monitoring for the facility. The failure had the potential for decreased monitoring of the facility and lack of tools for reviewing incidences. Findings include: A tour of the facility revealed wall mounted surveillance cameras strategically located to monitor common areas of the lobby, dining/multipurpose area, and hallways. The cameras provided monitoring of the doors which serves as the entrance and exits for the facility. On 02/01/2024 at 3:36 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) toured the information technology (IT) room where the camera monitor and recording devices were installed. The DON indicated the cameras aid the facility in terms of monitoring activities for both residents and staff in the common areas. The DON acknowledged the cameras were monitored by the use of a smartphone application. The DON indicated the access to the camera feeds is limited to the Administrator, the DON, and the Director of Maintenance. 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.
“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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to NEURORESTORATIVE — 5 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 | 3.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 3.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.8★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAREMERIDIAN LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 08/15/2008 |
| NATIONAL MENTOR HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2008 |
| CELTIC INTERMEDIATE CORP. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/08/2019 |
| NATIONAL MENTOR HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 11/22/2000 |
| NATIONAL MENTOR HOLDINGS, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 11/22/2000 |
| NATIONAL MENTOR LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 11/06/2002 |
| KULURIS, BRUCE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/17/2018 |
| COHEN, BRETT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/14/2015 |
| DUFFY, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/01/2017 |
| GLADITSCH, PETER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/01/2020 |
| MARTIN, GINA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2019 |
| MCKINNEY, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/21/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
6 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
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 295091. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-13, 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.