St Mary's Hospital For Children
29 01 216th Street, Bayside, NY 11360 · Non profit - Corporation · 124 certified beds · (718) 281-8800 Medicaid only — no Medicare
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 2023
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- 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 $26,130 in federal fines (most recent 2026-03-31)
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | Not rated |
| 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 | 11.1% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.5% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.1% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 19.5% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.7% | 0.2% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 3.1% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.2% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 50.4% | 13.2% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.4% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.6% | 6.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 0.2% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 0.8% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 78.1% | 78.8% | 79.4% | typical |
* 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
CMS has not published payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours for this facility yet — this can happen for newer, hospital-based, or recently-certified homes. It can also mean the home simply did not file, which CMS does not distinguish in this data, so treat the gap as unexplained rather than benign. Staffing is one of the three parts of the CMS star rating; where it’s missing, weigh the independent health-inspection score most, and ask the facility directly about its nurse-to-resident ratios and weekend RN coverage.
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Ldisputed · IDR2026-03-31 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — widespreadProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who required respiratory care, including tracheostomy (a surgically created opening called a stoma in the front of the neck leading into the windpipe (trachea) to help a person breathe) care, received services consistent with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan. This deficient practice was evidenced by the facility's nursing and respiratory therapy staff's failure to respond to critical oxygen saturation alarms for one (1) of six (6) residents (Resident #1) sampled for respiratory care. Specifically, on [DATE] at 8:58 AM, the resident's oxygen saturation dropped to 84%. A mobile alert was transmitted sequentially to Registered Nurses #1, #2, #3, and Respiratory Therapist #1. From 8:58 AM - 9:23 AM, the assigned staff failed to respond to the alarm or perform a clinical assessment of the resident. The alarm cycle continued for 25 minutes without intervention. At 9:23 AM,…
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 before2026-03-31 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 interviews, the facility failed to ensure that alleged violations involving neglect, was reported immediately, but not later that two (2) hours after the allegation is made, if the events that caused the allegation involved or resulted in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that caused the allegation do not involved abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for judications in long term care facilities). This was evident for one (1) out of six (6) residents sampled (Resident #1) for respiratory care. Specifically, on [DATE] at 8:58 AM, facility staff neglected the resident by not responding to the resident alert alarm indicating that the resident oxygen levels were decreasing and failed to provide timely assessment of the resident resulting in the resident being unresponsive with gray skin.…
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 · D2025-02-12 · 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, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey conducted from 02/05/2025 to 02/12/2025, the facility did not ensure a resident with limited mobility received appropriate services, equipment, and assistance to maintain, improve, or prevent avoidable decline in range of motion and mobility. This was evident in 1 (Resident #18) of 3 residents reviewed for Limited Range of Motion, out of 25 sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #18 who had a physician's order to apply bilateral wrist cock-up splints was observed on multiple occasions without the splint applied. The findings are: The facility's policy titled Osteopenia with a revised date of 06/2024 documented that the facility will screen and provide assessments upon admission and at least quarterly of all residents with potential/actual diagnosis of osteopenia. Safe handling guidelines, as outlined, should be always practiced. The policy documented that appropriate physical and occupational therapy evaluation will be…
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 · D2023-11-16 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
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 staff interview during the recertification survey conducted from 11/8/2023 to 11/16/2023, the facility did not ensure each resident received preadmission screening for a mental disorder or intellectual disability. This was evident for 1 (Resident #99) of 27 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #99 did not have a Level 1 Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) completed prior to their admission to the facility. The findings are: The facility policy titled PASRR Screen dated 12/2022 documented the PASARR Screen for all residents will be reviewed prior to their admission to protect their rights and ensure the identification and delivery of specialized developmental and mental health services. Resident #99 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of chronic respiratory failure and ventilator dependence. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #99 was severely cognitively impaired and admitted from an acute hospital 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 · D2023-11-10 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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, and record review conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00303294), the facility did not ensure that a resident was free from physical abuse. This was evident for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse. Specifically, on 10/04/22, a Registered Nurse (RN#1) reported to the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADNS) that a Certified Nursing Assistant (CAN#1) who was assigned to resident #1 on 10/03/22 was witnessed slapping resident's arm twice while the resident was reaching out to the nebulizer treatment. In addition, the RN#1 failed to remove the accuse C.N.A#1 from patient care and allowed the C.N.A#1 to continue to work until end of shift. Resident #1 was assessed with no injury sustained from the incident. The findings are: The facility Policy and Procedure titled Resident Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation subtitled states that all residents are treated with consideration, respect and full recognition of dignity and individuality, including privacy in treatment, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-10 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00303294), the facility did not ensure that an alleged violation of physical abuse was reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours if the alleged violation involves abuse to the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). Additionally, the facility did not report the alleged violation of abuse to local law enforcement (LLE). This was evident for 1 out of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse. Specifically, Resident #1 was slapped twice on their right hand by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 on 10/03/22 at approximately 08:30 PM. Registered Nurse (RN) #1 witnessed the abuse on 10/03/22 and reported it to the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 10/04/22 at 08:30 AM. The facility reported the violation of abuse to NYSDOH on 10/04/22 at 08:42 AM. The facility did not report the abuse to local law enforcement. The findings are: The facility Policy and Procedure titled Resident Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation subtitled Reporting last updated 10/2022, states that all…
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 · D2023-11-10 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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, and record review conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00303294), the facility did not ensure that an alleged violation of physical abuse was reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours of the alleged violation involves abuse to the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). This was evident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #1). Specifically, the facility did not report the alleged allegation of abuse of resident #1 to the NYSDOH within 2 hours when the assigned Certified Nurse Assistant (C.N.A#1) was witnessed slapping resident's arm hard, twice while the resident was reaching out to the nebulizer treatment. The findings are: The facility Policy and Procedure titled Resident Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation subtitled States Reporting last updated 10/2022 documented that the facility staff immediately reporting all alleged violations to the Administrator and to the DNS; and when necessary, to the police and the NYS DOH within specified timeframes. A…
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 · D2023-11-10 · 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 interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00302182, NY00303936), the facility failed to ensure that comprehensive care plans were reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments. This was evident in 2 (Residents #2 and #3) of 3 residents reviewed for care planning. Specifically, Resident #2's and Resident #3's comprehensive care plan (CCP) for alteration in urinary elimination were not reviewed and revised at each quarterly assessment and after a change in resident condition. The findings are: The facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plan that was last revised on 10/2023 documented the CCP should be kept current by all disciplines on an ongoing basis. Disciplines will be responsible for updating the plan of care when there is a new problem that requires that discipline to intervene. The care plan will be revised to reflect the resident's status, need, and achievements. The policy…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-10 · 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 observation, record review, and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00302182 and NY00303936), the facility did not ensure that residents were free from accidents. This was evident for 2 out of 3 residents (Resident #2 and #3) reviewed for accident. Specifically, 1.) Resident #2 was observed with redness to the right lower abdomen, by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #3, on 09/11/22. The facility Investigation Summary dated 09/13/22 documented that Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 applied a hot compress to Resident #2's right lower abdomen to elicit elimination. LPN #1 left Resident #2's room and did not monitor the hot compress. As a result, Resident #2 sustained redness to the abdomen. Vitamin A & D Ointment was applied. Additionally, there was no Physician's Order for the use of the hot pack. 2.) Resident #3 was observed with a blister to the upper right thigh on 10/17/22 at 2:57 PM. The facility's Investigation Summary documented that Registered Nurse (RN) #5 placed a hot pack on Resident #3's right thigh on 10/17/22 at approximately 7:00 AM. There 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 · D2021-09-09 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview conducted during the Recertification Survey, the facility did not ensure that residents were cared for in a manner that maintained or enhanced their dignity. Specifically, a resident's Ileostomy drainage bag and tubing were observed several times uncovered and exposed to public view in the hallway. This was evident for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Dignity out of a sample of 28 residents (Resident #106). The finding is: The facility policy dated Colostomy/Ileostomy Care dated 10/2019 documented the following: It is the policy of the facility that the licensed nurse is responsible for the care of the resident who has an ostomy. The Policy also documented that the licensed nurse would provide stoma care while changing the ostomy pouch and provide privacy. Resident #106 had diagnoses which include Ileostomy, GI Dysmotility, and Hereditary and Idiopathic Neuropathy. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had an impaired…
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.
“Disputed” is CMS’s own flag, not our reading: the CMS deficiency file records whether the home has formally contested a citation, and we reproduce that. IDR is Informal Dispute Resolution, run by the state survey agency that wrote the citation; IIDR is Independent Informal Dispute Resolution, a separate process before an outside entity, available when CMS has proposed a civil money penalty. They are different processes and we mark them differently. Two things to hold at once. A disputed citation is still a citation — it was written by a surveyor, it stands on the record unless and until it is changed, and we neither hide it nor discount it. And we cannot tell you how the dispute came out: CMS publishes that a citation is under dispute, not the outcome, so a tag marked here may since have been upheld, reduced, or deleted, and an unmarked tag may have been disputed and resolved before this file was cut. Ask the home what it disputed and why — it is entitled to tell you, and the answer is often the most informative thing on this page.
- 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
$26,130 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $26,130 — penalty dated 2026-03-31
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in NY
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 York 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 33A081. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-02-12, 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.