Yorktown Rehabilitation & Nursing Center

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.

52.5% 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 200 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 60.4% 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 144 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 0.34 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 58% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 17% 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 200 beds and averages 119.8 residents a day — about 60% occupied, or roughly 80 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.91 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.67 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.48 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 3.23 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.19 on weekdays — 23% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.82 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

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.

19 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 8 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · Gdisputed · IDR2026-03-11 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  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 interviews and record reviews during a survey, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from sexual abuse by a staff member for one (1) (Resident #1) of three (3) residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, the facility incident report documented on 02/21/2026 at 6:53 AM., Certified Nurse Aide #1 observed Housekeeper #1 in bed with Resident #1 who had severe cognitive impairment, lying in prone position on top of Resident #1. Subsequently Resident #1 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] for evaluation and treatment. It was determined that Resident #1's likelihood to experience actual psychosocial harm, using the reasonable person concept (referenced in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Psychosocial Outcome Severity Guide), occurred because of the alleged assault.The findings include The facility's policy and procedure titled The Seven Components of a Systemic Approach to Abuse Prohibition documented that the facility was committed to providing residents with an environment…

  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 · D2025-08-28 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews during an abbreviated survey (NY00348017/806183), the facility did not ensure assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 out of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for assessments. Specifically, Resident #1 who was cognitively impaired, had chronic confusion and gait/balance disturbances was not identified as a high risk for falls on admission. Resident #1 had an unwitnessed fall on 06/08/2024 and sustained a laceration to their left eyebrow and a bruise to their left elbow. Review of Resident #1's fall risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed it was not completed, reflecting inaccurate scoring on the assessment tool.The findings are:Resident #1 was admitted with diagnoses including but not limited to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Peripheral Vascular Disease.An admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #1 had severe cognitive impairment. Resident #1 had impairment to their upper extremities on both sides…

  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 Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-28 · 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 record review and interviews during an abbreviated survey (NY00348017/806183), the facility did not ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as is possible; and that each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 1 out of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for safety and supervision. Specifically, Resident #1 who had severe cognitive impairment with impaired thought process was assessed on admission as a low fall risk for fall. Resident #1 was left alone in their room on 6/8/2024. The resident had an unwitnessed fall and sustained a laceration to their left brow and bruising to their left elbow. Resident #1's room was located behind the nurse's station out of view from. Resident #1 had no specific measures in place for monitoring and oversight. The findings are:The facility Accident and Incident Prevention/Fall Risk policy last revised 11/21 documented it id the policy of the facility that safety is everyone's responsibility. Being alert and anticipating…

  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 · D2024-04-01 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide 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, record review, and interview conducted during the abbreviated survey (NY00315980) the facility did not ensure that 1 of 3 residents (Resident #3) reviewed for quality of care, received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. Specifically, Resident #3 exited the building unnoticed and was found on the ground. There was no documented evidence the resident was assessed before being transferred to the wheelchair and taken back into the building. The resident was sent to the hospital over 12 hours later with a broken hip. Findings include: Resident # 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Anxiety, Altered Mental Status and Diabetes Mellitus. The admission Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 5/1/2023 documented the resident had severely impaired cognition. The resident required two-person assistance for bed mobility and one-person physical assist for transfer, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene; and one-person physical assist…

  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 before2024-04-01 · 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 observation, record review and interviews during the abbreviated survey ( NY00315980) the facility did not ensure residents were provided supervision to avoid accident hazards for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #3) reviewed for accidents. Specifically, Resident #3 exited the building on 5/4/23 at 5:28 AM, undetected by staff, and was found an hour and half later at the end of the driveway. Later it was determined the resident had a fractured (broken) left hip. Findings include: The Policy and Procedure titled Elopement Prevention and Protocol for Missing Resident revised 9/2022 documented the facility will assess each resident upon admission, readmission, quarterly, annually, and when there is a significant change, to identify residents who have the potential for wandering and elopement to safeguard the health and welfare of those entrusted in our care. Residents will be protected from actual potential harm in a safe and secure manner while encouraging a restraint free environment. Resident #3 was admitted…

  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 before2024-01-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure that food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, 1) Food brought into the facility for use by staff was stored in a freezer unit, 2) Two (2) soiled cooling coil fans were in use in the dairy refrigerator, and this presented a risk for food contamination. 3) Open, perishable foods were not appropriately labeled. 4) a. For 4 of 4 microwaves in use on the resident units, there were no thermometers available to check food temperatures when reheating foods to ensure safe temperatures for food service, and b. for 3 of 4 microwaves there were no procedures or guidance posted for microwave use. Findings include: The initial tour of the kitchen was conducted on 1/17/24 at 10:21 AM with Staff #5 (Food Service Director) in attendance. The following were observed: 1) On 1/17/2024 at 10:29 AM, an opened, unlabeled, undated, plastic bag containing pieces of an uncooked, reddish-colored item was observed stored on a shelf in 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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-01-24 · tag F0574 — isolated
  The resident has the right to receive notices in a format and a language he or she understands.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation and interview conducted during the Recertification Survey from 01/17/24 to 01/24/24, the facility failed to ensure that the residents were informed and educated about their rights for 7 of 7 residents (Residents #44, #33, #91, #43, #32, #12, and #17) attending the Resident Council meeting. Specifically, the Residents' [NAME] of Rights was not posted on two of three floors in the facility. Findings include: The facility policy and procedure for Federal and State Rights of Residents, dated 05/09/22, documented the facility must furnish a written description of residents' legal rights which includes a posting in a conspicuous place in the facility. During the Resident Council meeting on 01/18/24 at 11:05 AM with 7 (#44, #33, #91,#43,#32,#12, #17) residents in attendance, all 7 stated they were unaware of the residents' legal rights. During an interview on 01/18/24 at 11:39 AM, Staff #11 (Activities Director) stated the Residents' Rights were posted on each floor in the shadow box. During an observation on 01/18/24 at 12:30 PM, the Residents [NAME] of Rights 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-01-24 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolated
  Ensure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
  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 the recertification survey from 1/17/24-1/24/24, the facility did not ensure that the menus met the nutritional needs and preferences for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for food. Specifically, Resident #4 did not receive double portions of food as planned. Findings include: The facility policy titled Nutritional and Hydration Policy dated 4/2018 documented the intent of this policy is to ensure, to the extent possible, that acceptable nutritional and hydration status and that the facility provides a therapeutic diet that take into account the resident's clinical condition, and preferences when there is nutritional indication. Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cervicalgia, pulmonary embolism, and heart disease. The 12/19/2023 admission/5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident's cognition was intact, and they required supervision with bed mobility and eating, and moderate…

  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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-01-24 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolated
  Make sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
  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, record review and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 1/17/24-1/24/24, the facility did not ensure that they were adequately equipped to allow residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system which relays the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #72) reviewed. Specifically, the call system unit at the bedside for Resident #72 was not operational and the call system push button was broken and not accessible. Findings include: The facility's policy titled Call Bell Procedure dated 5/2017 documented the availability of the call light/bell is mandatory by this facility and if a call bell is defective, report immediately to maintenance or designee, and provide tap bell until fixed. Resident #72 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including atrial fibrillation, major depressive disorder, and muscle weakness. The 11/1/23 quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment…

  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.

  Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-01-24 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00309033) surveys from 1/17/24 to 1/24/24, the facility did not maintain a safe, clean, and comfortable environment in 2 (Rooms 137, and 138) resident rooms. Specifically, room [ROOM NUMBER] had a hole in the wall, and room [ROOM NUMBER] had a hole on the window soffit ceiling. Findings include: During an observation on 01/17/24 at 11:01 AM, room [ROOM NUMBER] had a rectangular shaped opening in the wall facing the resident bed. The opening measured approximately 2.5 inches X 4 inches, and red, white, and black electrical wires were visible; a metal lamp shade was hanging from the opening. During an observation on 01/17/24 at 11:06 AM, room [ROOM NUMBER] had a round hole on the window soffit ceiling. The hole was approximately 5 inches wide and had black debris around the edge circumference. During an interview on 01/19/24 at 2:43 PM Certified Nurse Aide #21, stated they were assigned to the resident 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2020-10-28 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
  Develop 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 interview and record review conducted during the recertification survey, it cannot be ensured that the facility did developed a person-centered comprehensive care plan with measurable goals, time frames and appropriate interventions based on the resident's comprehensive assessment or ensured that interventions were implemented as per the plan of care for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #99) reviewed for positioning/range of motion and 1 of 6 residents (Resident #69) reviewed for unnecessary medications. Specifically, 1) Resident #99 did not have a care plan to address the use of assistive devices to prevent further upper extremity contractures, 2) Resident #69 did not have a care plan with measurable goals and appropriate interventions to address multiple diagnoses for which the resident was receiving medication management and 3) Resident #65 was not provided transfer assist and the use of a chair alarm as per the plan of care. Review of a facility Policy and Procedure (P/P) dated 11/28/2019 showed that 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning 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

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to PERSONAL HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT — 21 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 →

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

CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

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

This home reported $2.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

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