River View Rehabilitation And Nursing Care 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.

49.5% 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 60 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 66.0% 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 50 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 0.17 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 16% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 46% 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 77 beds and averages 73.1 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 4 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 3.68 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.70 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.28 is below 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 3.29 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.84 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.69 to 0.73 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 51% is about the same as 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 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.

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.

16 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 5 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · G2025-07-03 · 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

  Based on record review and interview during the abbreviated survey (NY00382934), the facility did not ensure residents had the right to be free from abuse for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed (Resident #1). Specifically, on 06/08/2025, Registered Nurse Supervisor #1 held Resident #1 around their neck while yelling at them, causing the resident physical pain and mental anguish. This resulted in actual harm, past non-compliance, to Resident #1 that was not Immediate Jeopardy. The facility policy Abuse and Neglect, revised 01/2023, documented the definition of abuse was the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment which results in physical harm, pain or mental anguish. An example of abuse included, but was not limited to, rough handling during care. Resident #1 had diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), shortness of breath, and vertigo of central origin (central nervous system problem causing a sensation of spinning or whirling, even when…

  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 · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · F2024-11-15 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — widespread
  Keep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey conducted 11/12/2024-11/15/2024, the facility did not ensure a resident's right to personal privacy of accommodations, medical care, and personal care for 50 of 77 residents reviewed. Specifically, all resident rooms were equipped with individual monitoring devices which currently transmitted personal health information to a third-party company and the facility did not obtain resident or resident representative consent for monitoring. Findings include: The undated facility document Privacy Practices documented the facility was required to maintain the privacy of the resident's health information and the residents had the right to not have their health information used or disclosed in certain ways. The undated [Third Party] instructions for passive vital devices documented the monitoring system was meant to provide physiologic data that qualified clinicians reviewed for health data trending purposes. The devices were strictly an adjunct tool for facility staff to monitor for trends in heart rate 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2024-11-15 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — widespread
  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

  Based on record review, observations, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00354914) surveys conducted 11/12/2024-11/15/2024, the facility did not ensure planned menus were followed for 3 of 3 residents (Residents #2, #32, and #528) reviewed. Specifically, Residents #2, #32, #528 did not receive preferred food items as planned per their individualized meal tickets. Findings include: The facility policy, The Dining Experience: Staff Responsibilities, dated 3/2020, documented the Food Service Manager would observe meals for preferences, portion sizes, temperature, flavor, variety, and accuracy. The Food Service Manager would report any concerns to the Administrator, Nursing Director, registered dietitian or designee, or other staff as appropriate. The facility policy, Timely Meal Service, dated 3/2020, documented meals were distributed promptly with supervision as needed by nursing staff. Staff should check each individual name and room number to verify correct information, and check items on the plate or tray against the meal ticket to assure accuracy. During…

  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 · F2024-11-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
  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, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 11/12/2024-11/15/2024, the facility did not ensure food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the main kitchen. Specifically, in the main kitchen there were unclean areas, potentially hazardous foods were not cooled properly, food storage of cold foods was not maintained, and there was lack of proper hand hygiene during meal service. Findings include: The facility policy, The Dining Experience: Staff Responsibilities, dated 3/2020, documented the staff maintained the sanitation of the kitchen through compliance with a written, comprehensive cleaning schedule. Cleaning and sanitation tasks for the kitchen were recorded. The facility policy, Food Preparation and Service, dated 3/2020, documented potentially hazardous foods should be cooled rapidly. This was defined as cooling from 135 degrees Fahrenheit to 70 degrees Fahrenheit within two hours and then to a temperature of below 41 degrees Fahrenheit within the…

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

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-15 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolated
  Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00354914) surveys conducted 11/12/2024-11/15/2024, the facility did not ensure each resident received food and drink that was palatable, flavorful, and at an appetizing temperature for 2 of 3 meal test trays (the 11/13/2024 and 11/14/2024 lunch meals) reviewed; for 11 of 11 anonymous residents present at the Resident Council meeting; and for one additional resident (Resident #2) interviewed during initial screening. Specifically, the 11/13/2024 and 11/14/2024 lunch meals were not served at palatable and appetizing temperatures and were burnt and not flavorful; 11 residents at the Resident Council meeting stated the food was cold and did not look appetizing; and Resident #2 stated the food was bland and cold. Findings include: The facility policy, The Dining Experience: Staff Responsibilities, dated 3/2020, documented the goals of the dining experience were to enhance the individual's quality of life through person centered dining: providing person centered care and attention; nourishing, palatable,…

  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 · D2024-11-15 · tag F0847 — isolated
  Inform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 11/12/2024-11/15/2024, the facility did not ensure the Binding Arbitration Agreement (a binding agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration, all or certain disputes which have arisen or may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. The decision is final, can be enforced by a court, and can only be appealed on very narrow grounds) was explained to the resident and their representative in a form and manner they understood, including the ability to rescind the agreement in 30 days, and the right to communicate with surveyors, state and federal officials, and the Ombudsman for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #63) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #63's Binding Arbitration Agreement was sent with the admission agreement via electronic mail to their representative, and the agreement was not complete, and was not followed up on for completeness. The findings include: The facility document, Voluntary Agreement for Arbitration, documented: A. The section 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.

  Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-11-15 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolated
  Make sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
  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 and interview during the recertification survey conducted 11/12/2024-11/15/2024, the facility did not ensure a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public in one resident room and one medication room. Specifically, the second-floor medication room was in disrepair and resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had an unclean floor. Findings include: The facility policy, House Keeping, revised 12/2018 documented resident rooms were cleaned daily to ensure cleanliness and safety. Daily cleanings included dust mopping and wet mopping the entire floor to include underneath the beds. The following observations were made in room [ROOM NUMBER]: - on 11/12/2024 at 11:48 AM, there was a greeting card, a brown napkin, and a red beverage cap on the floor under the head of the bed. - on 11/13/2024 at 10:38 AM and 1:38 PM, there was a greeting card and a red beverage cap on the floor under the head of the bed. - on 11/14/2024 at 8:38 AM and 9:55 AM, there was a greeting…

  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 · D2022-10-14 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
  Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00287791 and NY00287951) surveys conducted 10/11/22-10/14/22, the facility failed to ensure residents maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #33) reviewed. Specifically, Resident # 33 had a significant weight loss, was not reassessed by clinical nutrition staff, and had further significant weight loss. Findings include: The facility's Weight Assessment and Intervention policy dated 3/2020 documented: - Nursing staff would measure resident weights on admission, and weekly for four weeks thereafter. If there was no weight concern noted, weights would be measured monthly thereafter. - Any weight change of 5% or more since the last weight assessment would be retaken the next day for confirmation. If the weight was verified, nursing would immediately notify the dietitian in writing. Verbal notification must be confirmed in writing. - The dietitian would respond within 24 hours of receipt of written notification. The dietitian would review the…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2022-10-14 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
  Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey conducted 10/11/22-10/14/22, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles and include the expiration date when applicable for 1 of 2 medication carts (Unit 2 East side) and 2 of 2 medication storage rooms (Units 1 and 2) observed. Specifically, Unit 2 had expired stock medications in the unit medication room and the East side medication cart. Additionally, the Unit 1 medication room refrigerator had a multi-dose vial opened greater than 30 days. Findings include: The facility policy Storage of Medications dated 8/2018 documented the facility should not use discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals. All such drugs should be returned to the dispensing pharmacy or destroyed. Only persons authorized to prepare and administer medications should have access to the medication room, including the keys. The policy did not include instructions for opened multi-dose vials. During a medication storage…

  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
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2020-03-04 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — pattern
  Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure each resident received food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 3 of 4 meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner) tested for palatability and temperature. Specifically, items on breakfast, lunch, and dinner trays were served at unpalatable and unsafe temperatures. Findings include: The 10/2018 Food Preparation and Service policy documented the danger zone for food temperatures is between 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and 135 degrees F. The longer foods remain within the danger zone, the greater the risk for the rapid growth of microorganisms that can cause foodborne illness. On 3/1/20 at 11:16 AM, Resident #3 stated the food was often cold. On 3/1/20 at 2:52 PM, Resident #46 stated the temperature of the food was lukewarm. On 3/2/20 between 11:09 AM to 11:47 AM, a resident council meeting was conducted, and anonymous residents stated that the hot foods were not always hot, and the cold foods were not cold. Residents had specific…

  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 · D2020-03-04 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
  Honor 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

  Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure each resident had the right to a dignified existence for 2 of 2 nursing units reviewed (First and Second Floors) for dignity. Specifically, staff were observed having personal conversations at a lunch meal and not engaging or including the residents. Additionally, staff were observed discussing resident private information in a loud manner at the nursing station where others could overhear. Findings include: The 2/2013 HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) documents residents' health information may not be used and/or disclosed contrary to privacy rules managed by the federal registrar. The facility is required to ensure that health information that identifies the resident is kept private. The undated facility HIPAA Privacy Rule policy documents the privacy rule affects everyone in the facility and at any location on the property. All healthcare facilities are required to protect resident privacy and confidentiality in any form-oral, written or…

  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

“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.

Fines & penalties

$12,735 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $12,735 — penalty dated 2025-07-03

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to THE MAYER FAMILY — 11 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 14 rows in the source record cover these 10 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.

About 79% 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. This home reported $1.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% 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