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

Penn Yan Manor Nursing Home Inc

655 North Liberty Street, Penn Yan, NY 14527 · Non profit - Corporation · 46 certified beds · (315) 536-2311 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (315) 536-2311 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0607) — cited Aug 2022Behavioral-health or dementia-care citation — no harm found (F0740)
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — 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
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
  • its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions

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.

5/5
CMS overall
5 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 5 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 2 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
Pharmacy
126 Main St · (315) 536-0100 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
321 Liberty St · (315) 536-2508 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Park1.1 mi
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 2 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 2 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 3 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

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

Overall rating5★
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 increased18.1%14.1%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight2.3%5.8%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder1.1%0.5%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection10.2%1.3%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms1.2%19.5%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury6.8%3.1%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened12.5%12.5%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication14.2%13.2%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%95.3%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers7.0%6.5%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control22.9%19.5%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table16.1%13.7%17.1%typical

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ 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.

0.09U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
<0.01hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.09hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.09 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 5% 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 SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identifiednot 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 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 dischargenot reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF staynot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsenednot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalizationnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.831.02Oct 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

0.44
RN hours/ resident / day
0.90
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.35
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.68
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.39
RN hoursweekends
36.0%
Total nursing turnover
33.3%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 46 beds and averages 43.9 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 0.44 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.35 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 3.35 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.82 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.46 to 0.39 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% 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

1
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2024-04-25)
5
at the previous standard inspection (2022-08-05)

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.

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.

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

  • Potential for harm · D2024-04-25 · tag F0661 — isolated
    Ensure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interviews and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey the facility did not ensure that the completion of a discharge summary that included a recapitulation of the residents stay, a final summary of the resident's status and a post-discharge plan was completed for one (Resident #40) of one resident reviewed. Specifically, the resident was discharged without a complete discharge summary to ensure the facility communicated the necessary information to the resident, the continuing care provided and the resident representative (if applicable) at the time of discharge. The finding is: The undated policy and procedure Discharge Summary and Plan provided by the Administrator, documented when a resident's discharge is anticipated, a discharge summary and post-discharge plan will be developed. The discharge summary will include a recapitulation of the resident's stay at the facility and a final summary of the resident's status at the time of discharge. A post-discharge plan will be developed by the care planning/interdisciplinary team with the assistance 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2022-08-05 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — pattern
    Develop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
    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 reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 8/5/22, it was determined that the facility did not implement written policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property related to screening prospective employees. Specifically, a Nurse Aide Registry (NAR) abuse screening was not completed prior to hire for four out of five employee files reviewed. The findings are: 1. On 8/4/22 from 10:34 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. the surveyor was provided documentation related to five newly hired employees. The files included Employees #1, #4 and #5 were hired as: Certified Nurse Assistants (CNAs) and Employee #2, was hired as a Housekeeper. The files also included hire dates of 6/17/22, 6/23/22, 4/4/22, and 4/17/22 for Employees #1, #2, #4 and #5, respectively. The documentation provided did not include a NAR abuse screen for employee #4, and the NAR abuse screen for employees #1, #2, and #5 were run on 8/4/22 (after hire). 2. 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2022-08-05 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — pattern
    Dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 8/5/22, it was determined that for one of one kitchen the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly. Specifically, the garbage dumpster outside the facility was not equipped with a tight-fitting lid, door, or cover. This is evidenced by the following: Observations during the follow-up kitchen tour on 8/4/22 at approximately 11:55 a.m., revealed a large rectangular open-top roll-off garbage dumpster outside the facility located outside the nearby hospital kitchen where the facility meals are prepared. There were garbage bags accumulating in the dumpster and with no cover, which could create a potential feeding and harborage area for pests. During an interview on 8/4/22 at 11:55 a.m., the Kitchen Supervisor stated that the garbage dumpster had been in place for one year and was emptied twice a week. The Kitchen Supervisor stated there was never a tight-fitting lid, cover, or door on the dumpster. During an interview on 8/4/22 at 12:17 p.m., the Director of…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-08-05 · tag F0557 — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
    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 8/5/22, it was determined that for one (Resident #13) of five residents reviewed during dining, the facility did not ensure that the resident received care in a respectful and dignified manner during meals. Specifically, Resident #13 did not receive timely assistance with eating. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #13 had diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbances, Parkinson's disease, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and anxiety. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 5/19/22, documented that Resident #13 had severe impairment of cognitive skills and was totally dependent on staff for eating. Review of current physician orders revealed that Resident #13 was ordered a regular diet, with puree texture and nectar thick fluid consistency. The current comprehensive care plan (CCP) and current Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) care card (used by CNAs for daily care) included that Resident #13 was at risk for aspiration and was not allowed to be fed by…

    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 · D2022-08-05 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, completed on 8/5/22, it was determined that for 3 (Residents #29, #17 and #19) of 13 residents reviewed, the facility did not ensure that the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, and to formulate an advance directive would be honored. Specifically, the color-coded name plates at the entrance of the residents' rooms did not match the wishes documented on the residents' Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST). Review of the undated facility policy Advance Directives, indicated; if a resident has executed an advance directive, it will be displayed prominently in the medical record and reflected in the resident's care plan. 1. Resident #27 had diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder, schizophrenia, and major depression. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 6/27/22, included that the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Review of the MOLST form, dated 3/19/21, documented Resident #27's wishes as Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) and Do Not…

    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 · D2022-08-05 · tag F0645 — isolated
    PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey, completed 8/5/22, it was determined that for 1 (Resident #27) of 13 residents reviewed, the facility did not ensure that each resident was screened for a mental disorder (MD) or intellectual disability (ID) prior to admission to the facility and that individuals identified with MD or ID were evaluated and received care and services in the most integrated setting to meet their needs. Specifically, there was no evidence that a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) was completed for Resident #27, who had been admitted to the facility with a significant MD diagnosis. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder, schizophrenia, and major depression. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 6/27/22, indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) and the paper record 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-11-12 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    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 observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for one of one resident reviewed for activities, the facility did not develop a person-centered care plan that included measurable goals and interventions to meet the resident's medical, nursing, and psychosocial needs. Specifically, Resident #13 did not have an activities care plan. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, seizures, and dementia. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 8/22/19, revealed the resident was cognitively intact. The admission Activity Assessment, dated 8/14/19, revealed that books and local newspapers were very important to the resident. The resident liked cards, was Presbyterian, and liked small and large group activities. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan and Closet Care Plan (care plan used by Certified Nursing Assistants - CNA) revealed that neither care plan…

    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 · D2019-11-12 · 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 interviews and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey and complaint investigation (#NY00244354), it was determined that for one of two residents reviewed for accidents, the facility did not ensure that residents received adequate supervision to avoid potential accidents. Specifically, Resident #2 eloped from the facility undetected and fell while outside the building, and the resident's care plan was not revised to include an actual elopement. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included Alzheimer's, osteoarthritis, and diabetes. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 7/29/19, revealed the resident had severely impaired cognition and wandered four to six days but less than daily. The current Comprehensive Care Plan revealed the resident's behavior symptoms included wandering as evidenced by exit seeking behaviors since admission, and wandering in and out of other's rooms. Exit seeking attempts occurred 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-11-12 · 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

    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 that for one (Resident #44) of one resident reviewed for an indwelling urinary catheter (a tubing inserted into the bladder to drain urine into a bag), the facility did not ensure that a resident who entered the facility with an indwelling urinary catheter was assessed for removal of the catheter as soon as possible unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrated that the indwelling catheter was the only option. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including benign prostate hypertrophy, urinary retention, and a history of urinary tract infections, including one currently. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 10/28/19, included that the resident had moderately impaired cognition, had a urinary catheter, and required extensive assistance from staff for personal hygiene. The Current Comprehensive Care Plan included that 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 · D2019-11-12 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolated
    Ensure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and services.
    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 that for one (Resident #36) of one resident reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR- a screen used to determine developmental disability and/or mental health needs), the facility did not ensure the resident received the necessary behavioral health care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being in accordance with the comprehensive assessment and plan of care. The issues included lack of behavioral health services to ensure the resident's behavioral health needs were met as identified in the comprehensive assessment. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses including schizophrenia, bipolar disease, depression, and anxiety. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 10/12/19, revealed the resident was cognitively intact, had occasional feelings of…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-11-12 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolated
    Ensure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
    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 that the facility did not ensure that it was free of a medication error rate of 5 percent or greater for 2 of 11 residents observed for medication administration resulting in a 6 percent error rate. Specifically, Resident #37's eye drops were administered in both eyes instead of one eye, and Resident #30 had a medication ordered after meals that was given over an hour before meals. This is evidenced by the following: 1. Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses including diabetes and retinal vein occlusion of the right eye with macular edema. Current physician orders included timolol maleate 0.5 percent eye drops with instructions to instill one drop in right eye twice daily for ocular hypertension (increased pressure in the eye). During observation of medication administration on 11/7/19 at 9:39 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 instilled one drop of timolol eye…

    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
  • No harm found · B2019-11-12 · tag F0623 — pattern
    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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for one (Resident #15) of one resident reviewed for hospitalization, the facility did not ensure the resident or the resident's representative received a written Transfer or Discharge Notice when the resident was transferred to the hospital. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #156 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included dementia, depression, and hypertension. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 8/25/19, revealed the resident usually comprehends most conversations. The facility policy, Transfer and Discharge from the Facility, dated 10/19/17, revealed the resident and representative will receive timely notification, adequate preparation and information to make transfers as orderly and safe as possible. The notice contains information about the transfer and the resident's rights to appeal. A copy of the Discharge/Transfer Notice will be kept in the medical record 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · B2019-11-12 · tag F0625 — pattern
    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 reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for one (Resident #15) of one resident reviewed for hospitalization, the facility did not ensure a written notification, which specifies the duration of the bedhold policy, was provided to the resident or the resident's representative at the time of transfer to the hospital. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #156 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included dementia, depression, and hypertension. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 8/25/19, revealed the resident usually understands and comprehends most conversations. A nursing progress note, dated 11/2/19 at 6:02 p.m., revealed the resident was transferred to the hospital at 6:30 p.m. The facility was notified at 10:30 p.m. that the resident was admitted to the hospital. Review of the medical record revealed there was no documented evidence that the resident's representative was notified in writing of the facility…

    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
  • No harm found · B2019-11-12 · tag F0655 — pattern
    Create and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
    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 conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for six (Residents #6, #12, #13, #15, #44, and #95) of eight residents reviewed for Baseline Care Plans, the facility did not consistently develop and implement a Baseline Care Plan within 48 hours of admission that included the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for the immediate needs of the resident and did not consistently review or provide the resident or representative a written summary. This is evidenced by, but not limited to, the following: 1. Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including benign prostatic hypertrophy, urine retention, and an indwelling urinary catheter. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 4/28/19, revealed that the resident had severely impaired cognition. The Baseline Care Plan provided by the facility, dated 4/18/19, did not include the resident's medications, diet instructions, therapy services related to…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
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.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
POWERS, GREGIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/25/2023
SNYDER, LAURENIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/1971
FEINBERG, JASONIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2024
FISH, JESSICAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 11/15/2024

CMS files one row per role, so the 7 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

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.

$3.9M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-13.4%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$44K
Related-party expense1% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 60%Medicare 4%Other / private 36%

This home reported $44K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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

Cost & finances

$313per resident / day
operating cost
$9,516per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$276per 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 335494. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-04-25, 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