Highpointe On Michigan Health Care Facility

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

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.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

45.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 148 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 52.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 77 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.46 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 77% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 300 beds and averages 258.2 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 42 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.41 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.16 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.13 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 4.62 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.73 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.33 to 0.75 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 32% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.

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.

30 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 18 are one tap away and print in full.

• Immediate jeopardy · Lcited before2024-09-16 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — widespread
  Protect 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 observations, interviews and record reviews conducted during a complaint investigation (#NY00330798 and #NY00325133) during an extended standard re-certification survey from 9/3/2024 to 9/16/2024, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from sexual abuse by a resident for three (Residents #33, #50, #208) of ten residents reviewed. Specifically, the facility failed to implement safeguards that resulted in repeated instances of sexual abuse with residents that had impaired cognitive status and lacked the ability to consent. This resulted in and had the likelihood for psychosocial harm that is Immediate Jeopardy and Substandard Quality of Care for Residents #33, #50, #208 with the likelihood to affect all residents (census 265) in the facility. The findings are: The policy and procedure titled Identification and Reporting of Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, or Mistreatment of a Skilled Nursing Facility Resident revised on 9/12/2024 documented any resident abuse will not be tolerated.…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Actual harm · Gcited before2024-09-16 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review completed during complaint investigations (Complaint #NY00345300 and #NY00324827) during an extended recertification survey, the facility failed to ensure that each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents and elopement for two (Resident #20 and #228) of ten residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #228 required 1:1 (one to one) supervision for safety and had an unwitnessed fall, sustaining a right hip fracture. In addition, on 9/24/2023 at 1:25 PM Resident #189 eloped through the front door of the facility. This resulted in actual harm to Resident #228 that was not Immediate Jeopardy. The findings are: 1. During an interview on 9/11/2024 at 12:39 PM both the Director of Nursing and the Administrator stated there was no policy for 1:1 supervision. Review of the Role of the Sitter and Sitter Safety in the Acute Healthcare Setting education revealed the definition of 1:1 is constant observation, meaning a situation in which a staff member is…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-03-05 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — pattern
  Protect 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, interview, and record review conducted during a survey the facility did not ensure the resident's right to be free from neglect for twenty two (22) (Residents #1, 2, 3, 7, 8 ,9 ,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25) of twenty two (22) residents reviewed. Specifically, on 08/18/2025, 08/27/2025, 08/28/2025, and 12/04/2025 staff did not provide incontinent rounds and/or care every two (2) to three (3) hours per the residents' plan of care and safety checks.The findings are but not limited to: The policy titled Identification and Reporting of Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, or Mistreatment of a Skilled Nursing Facility Resident, as per Public Health Law Section 2803-d revised 10/22/2024 documented that resident abuse and neglect, will not be tolerated. Any staff member or volunteer shall not physically, mentally, sexually or emotionally abuse, mistreat or neglect a resident. Neglect is defined as the failure of the facility, it's employees or service providers to…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-05 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, observation, and record review conducted during a survey, the facility did not ensure that each resident received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for two (2) (Residents #4 and #5) of three (3) resident reviewed for accidents. Specifically, the facility did not ensure that Resident #4, who was severely cognitively impaired and at risk for elopement, was adequately supervised to prevent them from exiting through a stairwell door and they were found in the stairwell; the facility did not ensure Resident #5 was reassessed for elopement risk or had interventions in place to prevent/address exit seeking behavior when they had improvement in their functional levels and the resident was found on the sidewalk next to the building by staff. The findings are:The policy titled Elopement Long Term Care/ Missing Person, last revised 12/08/2025, documented it was required and desired for the facility to provide a safe environment for all residents. The facility would properly…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-24 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
  Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, and record review conducted during the Abbreviated Survey (Complaint #NY00376929) the facility did not ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care, is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents' goals and preferences for one (1) (Resident #1) of three (3) reviewed. Specifically, a BiPAP machine (Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure machine used as a non-invasive respiratory support) was not provided until five days after admission to the facility. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Resident Assessment Process revised 12/2022 documented the external data collection of medical documents begins at the time of admission from transferring institutions. These documents will assist the interdisciplinary team in the development of the comprehensive assessment. Data will be collected from various sources, not limited to hospitals. The internal collection process was conducted simultaneously of…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-09-16 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — widespread
  Respond 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 interview and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (#NY00330798 and #NY00325133) during an extended standard survey on 9/16/24, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations of abuse were thoroughly investigated for four (Resident #33, Resident #50, Resident #208, Resident #226) of ten residents reviewed. Specifically, facility investigations lacked interviews with potential witnesses and other potential victims (Resident #50, Resident #208, and Resident #226). Also, there was lack of an investigation when Resident #226 exposed their genitals in front of Resident #33 and Resident #50 in a common area. The findings are: The policy and procedure titled Identification and Reporting of Abuse, Neglect, Exploitations, of Mistreatment of a Skilled Nursing Facility Resident revised on 9/12/24, it documented that the facility begins an investigation immediately upon discovery of an incident, gather statements from the resident who is the suspected victim of abuse, gather statements…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2024-09-16 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — widespread
  Administer the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
  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 and record review conducted during an extended standard survey completed from 9/3/2024 to 9/16/2024, the facility was not administered in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. The facility must operate and provide services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes, and with accepted professional standards and principles that apply to professionals providing services in such a facility. The facility must have a governing body, or designated persons functioning as a governing body, that is legally responsible for establishing and implementing policies regarding the management and operation of the facility; and the governing body is responsible and accountable for the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement program. Specifically, the administration did not ensure policies and procedures were…

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

  Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2024-09-16 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — widespread
  Set up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
  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 and record review conducted during an extended survey completed on 9/16/24, the facility did not ensure a quality assurance and performance improvement (QAPI) program did not ensure the committee developed and implemented appropriate plans of action to correct quality deficiencies and regularly reviewed, analyzed and acted on available data to make improvements. Specifically, the facility quality assurance and improvement program did not identify, develop, and implement an appropriate plan to prevent and protect all residents from sexual abuse when repeated patterns of sexually inappropriate behaviors occurred. Additionally, when there was a change in the facilities processes for addressing hospital transfer/discharge notifications and bed hold policy notices; the facility quality assurance and performance improvement program did not identify they were not being completed as required. Refer to: F 600 - Free from Abuse and Neglect F 610 - Investigate/Prevent/Correct Alleged Violation F 623 -…

  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.

  Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-09-16 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
  Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during an Extended survey completed on 9/16/24, the facility did not ensure the resident's representative was notified immediately of a change of condition for one (Resident #267) of two residents reviewed for notification of change. Specifically, Resident #267's representative was not notified of the resident's tracheostomy (opening into the trachea) tube being removed. The finding is: Resident #267 had diagnoses that included traumatic subdural hemorrhage (bleeding in the brain), acute kidney failure, and depression. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 8/11/24 documented Resident #267 was moderately cognitively impaired, usually understood and sometimes understands. The comprehensive care plan dated 5/11/24 documented Resident #267 had a tracheostomy related to impaired breathing mechanics. The comprehensive care plan documented the resident had a knowledge deficit related to their medical condition and/or plan of care. Review of Resident #267's admission Record, with a printout date of 9/9/24,…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-16 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
  Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a complaint investigation (#NY00324941) during an Extended survey completed on 9/16/24, the facility did not ensure that each resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain grooming and personal hygiene for one (Residents #20) of two residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #20 had greasy, disheveled hair, with matting and knots to the back of their head. The finding is: Resident #20 had diagnoses that included multiple sclerosis (disease central nervous system), age-related physical debility, and epilepsy (seizure disorder). The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 7/7/24 documented the resident was understood, understands, and had severe cognitive impairment. The Minimum Data Set documented Resident #20 did not exhibit rejection of care behaviors and they required substantial/maximal assistance for personal hygiene. Review of the facility Orientation Checklist for…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-09-16 · tag F0700 — isolated
  Try different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during an extended standard survey completed on 9/16/24, the facility did not ensure residents were assessed for risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation, review the risks and benefits of bed rails with the resident or resident representative, and obtained informed consent prior to the installation of bed rails for one (Resident # 20) of one resident reviewed for bed rails. Specifically, Resident #20 was not assessed for risk of entrapment from bed rails, there was no documented evidence the risks and benefits of bed rails were reviewed and that consents were obtained prior to bed rail use. Additionally, there was lack of maintaining the bed rails in proper working order. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Transfer/Bed Mobility Bar revised 10/25/22 documented the goal is always to maintain the highest practical functional status for our residents. The use of a transfer/bed mobility bar facilitates this commitment 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-09-16 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolated
  Ensure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (#NY00336618) during an Extended survey completed on 9/16/24, the facility did not ensure that residents are free of significant medication errors for one (Resident #250) of three residents reviewed. Specifically, on 3/20/24 Registered Nurse #3 erroneously administered Resident #247's morning medications to Resident #250 which resulted in a significant medication error. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Medication Ordering, Interpretation and Administration Guidelines revised 10/3/22 documented prior to all medication administration, scanning both the patient's wristband and the medication barcode are required. The facility's Medication Administration Competency Assessment Tool revised 5/11/23 documented medications were administered using the right resident, right medication, right dose, resident route, right time, right reason/indication for medication, right documentation, and right response. Resident #250 had diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure, tracheostomy status (an…

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

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Fines & penalties

$129,149 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $129,149 — penalty dated 2024-09-16

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

CMS files one row per role, so the 39 rows in the source record cover these 35 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

About 84% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in NY