No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Absolut Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation at T

101 Creekside Drive, Painted Post, NY 14870 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 120 certified beds · (607) 936-4108 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (607) 936-4108 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0609) — cited Feb 2025
Insights

On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
Worth asking about
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
9768 Liberty Drive · (607) 937-5555 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
3217 Silverback Ln · (607) 937-9681 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
305 S Hamilton St · (607) 377-5481 · Call to confirm hours
Park
44 Forest Dr · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 3 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased7.9%14.1%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight9.4%5.8%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.5%0.5%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.3%1.3%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.0%19.5%6.5%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury0.8%3.1%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened8.9%12.5%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication22.3%13.2%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine98.0%95.3%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers2.9%6.5%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control13.6%19.5%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table15.6%13.7%17.1%typical
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.4%1.2%1.4%typical
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine76.5%78.8%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission19.8%20.6%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit7.8%9.6%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.531.701.67typical
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.921.361.80typical

* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

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.

40.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 104 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

40.8%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.7%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
44.9%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.30U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.10hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.20hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy

Met the expected recovery: 44.9% 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 49 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 0.30 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 47% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF40.8%CMS range 31.5–49.151.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024worse than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.7%CMS range 8.2–16.110.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge44.9%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge28.6%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge57.1%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified96.5%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge96.7%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened1.8%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.0%CMS range 3.7–13.47.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.841.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.49
RN hours/ resident / day
0.95
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.15
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.58
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.24
RN hoursweekends
46.6%
Total nursing turnover
30.8%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 102.9 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 17 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 3.58 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.49 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.15 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 2.74 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.93 on weekdays — 30% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.59 to 0.24 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 47% is about the same as 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

5
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-02-28)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2023-01-13)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · E2025-02-28 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey from 02/24/2025 to 02/28/2025, for four (Residents #16, #45, #79, #100) of seven residents reviewed, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, Resident #45 had respiratory symptoms, tested positive for Covid-19, and was not placed on enhanced droplet/contact precautions (a strategy used by nursing homes to prevent the spread of infectious diseases). Staff were observed within six feet of Resident #45 without wearing personal protective equipment (equipment used to protect against the transmission of communicable diseases/infections such as gloves, gowns, face masks, and face shields), including but not limited to, a face mask and face shield. Resident #79 was admitted with a open area to their leg and subsequently developed a pressure ulcer to their heel, was not placed on…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-28 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 02/24/2025 to 02/28/2025, for one (Resident #66) of four resident reviewed, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving potential abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment were reported to the New York State Department of Health in accordance with state law. Specifically, the facility did not report a resident falling out of bed during care that was being provided by one Certified Nursing Assistant opposed to two Certified Nursing Assistants per the resident's person-centered Comprehensive Care Plan. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy Accident/Incident Investigation and Prevention, dated June 2023, included in the event a resident is involved in an accident or incident in which it is reasonable to assume, based on the facts, that negligence is involved, the occurrence shall be reported to the New York State Health Department according to the Patient Abuse 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-28 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey from 02/24/2025 to 02/28/2025, for one (Residents #15) of seven residents reviewed, the facility did not ensure that residents who were dependent on staff for assistance received the necessary services to maintain grooming and personal hygiene. Specifically, Resident #15 did not receive consistent assistance with nail care. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy Nail Care, dated 04/10/2011, documented routine nail care is to be done following bath and/or shower whenever possible. Resident #15 had diagnoses including vascular dementia, congestive heart failure, and traumatic brain injury. The Minimum Data Set Resident Assessment, dated 01/04/2025, documented the resident had severely impaired cognition and was dependent with personal hygiene. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan, last reviewed on 01/05/2025, and current [NAME] (plan of care used by Certified Nursing Assistants) revealed Resident #15…

    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 · D2025-02-28 · 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

    Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 02/24/2025 to 02/28/2025, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for one (Resident #51) of one resident reviewed for edema. Specifically, the facility did not ensure the resident received the highest practical, physical, mental, and psychosocial wellbeing, including ace wraps to both lower extremities. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #51 had diagnoses including congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), and edema (swelling due to excess fluid in the tissues). The Minimum Data Set Resident Assessment, dated 02/07/2025, documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition. Review of Resident #51's current physician's orders revealed orders for ace wraps to both lower extremities from feet to knees as tolerated, on early AM, off in PM, as needed for edema, and to document refusals (initially ordered on 03/25/2023). Review of Resident #51's Care Plan, dated…

    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 · D2025-02-28 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolated
    Provide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 02/24/2025 to 02/28/2025, for one (Resident #36) of one resident reviewed, the facility did not ensure that dialysis services provided were consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive care plan and physician orders. Specifically, the facility did not have evidence of consistent monitoring of the resident's ordered 24-hour fluid restriction, did not have physician's orders or a care plan for having a tunneled dialysis catheter (surgically inserted catheter into the chest wall used to perform dialysis), did not have documented evidence of monitoring the catheter and dressing for potential complications, and were not following the vascular physician's recommendations. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #36 had diagnoses that included end stage renal (kidney) disease, muscle weakness, and diabetes. The Minimum Data Set Resident Assessment, dated 02/11/2025, revealed Resident #36 was cognitively intact and received dialysis treatments. Review of 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-01-13 · tag F0685 — isolated
    Assist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey completed on 1/13/23 it was determined that the facility did not ensure that one of two residents reviewed for vision and hearing received proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain vision and hearing abilities. Specifically, Resident #46 who has a diagnosis of glaucoma, (a disease that damages the eyes optic nerve and can cause blindness) did not receive any eye examinations since admission to the facility on 4/21/21 to ensure the resident maintained adequate vision without complications. The finding is: Review of the facility Policy Consultants dated 3/1/20 documented that the facility arranges for qualified professional personal to furnish specific services to the residents in the facility. Consultant services are utilized in the following areas: Optometrist, Podiatrist and Dental Services. 1. Resident #46 has diagnoses including dementia, anxiety, and glaucoma. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool) dated 12/2/22 documented Resident #46 was understood,…

    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 · D2023-01-13 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey completed 1/13/23, the facility did not ensure that a resident who enters the facility without a Foley catheter (an indwelling urinary catheter inserted into the bladder to drain urine) is not catheterized unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that catheterization was necessary or who subsequently received one is assessed for removal of the Foley catheter as soon as possible unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrated that catheterization was necessary. Specifically, one (Resident #361) of one resident reviewed for catheters did not have a documented valid medical justification for a continueing Foley catheter. Additionally, the Foley catheter and care of was not reflected on the resident's comprehensive care plan (CCP) and the Foley catheter tubing was observed on the floor on several observations. The finding is: The facility policy Catheter (Urinary and Suprapubic) Insertion and Removal effective March 2020 documented that prior to the insertion the Resident Care…

    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 · E2021-05-03 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 5/3/21, it was determined that for four of four residents (Residents #34, #7, #83, and #48) reviewed, the facility did not provide food and drink that was palatable and at a safe and appetizing temperature. Specifically, the issues involved food that was unpalatable, not served at preferable temperatures and not served as ordered. Additionally, it was determined that facility equipment to keep the food warm had not been repaired or replaced as needed. This is evidenced by, but not limited to, the following: Review of the facility policy, Food Preparation, Service and Distribution, dated May 2021, revealed facility staff will serve hot foods hot and cold foods cold in accordance with resident preference. 1. Resident #34 was admitted with diagnoses including malnutrition, diabetes, and end stage renal disease with dialysis. A Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 4/12/21, revealed the resident was cognitively intact. When interviewed on 4/28/21 at 2:23 p.m., Resident #34…

    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 · D2021-05-03 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interviews and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 5/3/21, it was determined that one (Resident #7) of four residents reviewed for dignity, the facility did not make prompt efforts to resolve a grievance. Specifically, the resident's concerns regarding treatment received by a specific staff member were not documented, investigated, or resolved in a timely manner. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #7 was admitted with diagnoses including diabetes, diabetic neuropathy (nerve damage), and depression. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 4/15/21, revealed the resident was cognitively intact, had no behaviors or refusals of care, and required extensive assistance of two staff for activities of daily living. When interviewed on 4/28/21 at 2:07 p.m., Resident #7 said a nurse put them to bed a few months ago still in their clothes and toileting assistance was not provided all night. Resident #7 said they told another nurse and a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) about the incident. In an interview on 4/30/21 at 1:34 p.m., Licensed…

    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 · D2021-05-03 · tag F0623 — isolated
    Provide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interviews and record reviews conducted during a Recertification Survey it was determined that for two of two residents, the facility did not ensure that the residents or the residents' representative were notified of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing in a language and manner they understand. The issue involved Residents #40 and #87 who were transferred to the hospital and written notice of the transfer was not provided. This was evidenced by the following: 1. Resident #40 had diagnoses that included advanced dementia, osteoporosis, and diabetes. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 2/15/21, revealed the resident had severely impaired cognition. Review of the medical record revealed that on 3/26/21, Resident #40 was transferred and admitted to the hospital. The hospital transfer form, dated 3/26/21, revealed that the representative was notified by phone of the transfer. There was no documented evidence that the resident or representative was notified in writing of the resident's transfer. 2. Resident #87 had diagnoses that included…

    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 · D2021-05-03 · tag F0625 — isolated
    Notify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
    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 review conducted during a Recertification Survey completed on 5/3/21, it was determined that for two of two residents reviewed the facility did not provide written notice of the facility's bed hold policy to the resident or representative at the time of transfer to the hospital. The issue involved Residents #40 and #87 and their representatives who were not provided information regarding the facility's bed hold policy when transferred to the hospital. This was evidenced by the following: 1. Resident #40 had diagnoses that included advanced dementia, osteoporosis, and diabetes. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 2/15/21, revealed the resident had severely impaired cognition. Review of the medical record revealed that on 3/26/21 Resident #40 was transferred and admitted to the hospital. There was no documented evidence the resident or the resident's representative was notified in writing of the facility bed hold policy. 2. Resident #87 had diagnoses that included…

    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 before2021-05-03 · 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined for one (Resident #31) of three residents reviewed, the facility did not ensure that a resident who is unable to carry out Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene. Specifically, Resident #31 was not assisted with proper nail care. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy Nail Care, dated March 2020, includes the purpose is to ensure cleanliness and to prevent infection. Routine nail care is to be done following a bath or shower whenever possible. Resident #31 had diagnoses including dementia without behavioral disturbance, major depressive disorder, and macular degeneration. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 2/7/21, revealed Resident #31 had severely impaired cognition, had no behavioral symptoms, and required the extensive assistance of two persons for personal hygiene. Review of 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

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to ABSOLUT CARE — 5 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 53.2+0.8 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 53.4+0.6 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 52.6+0.4 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 54.0≈ chain avg
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
SHERMAN, ISRAELIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST45%since 06/07/2007
SCHIEK, KRISIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 06/21/2018
ROSSO, RALPHIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2024
SHERMAN, SAMUELIndividualLIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTERESTsince 06/07/2007

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.

$12.6M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-1.4%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 69%Medicare 6%Other / private 24%

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

$328per resident / day
operating cost
$9,965per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$323per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the New York Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in New York
$15,528/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$16,729/mo
Nursing home (private)
$7,110/mo
Assisted living

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 335652. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-02-28, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next