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

Salem Hills Rehabilitation And Nursing Center

539 Route 22, Purdys, NY 10578 · For profit - Partnership · 126 certified beds · (914) 277-3691 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (914) 277-3691 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 13 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

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

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
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (17% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)

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 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 2 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
380 Route 202 · (914) 277-5550 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
336 Route 202 · (914) 276-2121 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
8 Heritage Hls · (914) 277-5555 · Call to confirm hours
Park
15 Sunset Dr · (914) 669-5665 · 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 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 5 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 held steady at 3 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 rating3★
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 increased14.8%14.1%15.4%typical
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight7.8%5.8%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.5%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%1.3%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms11.8%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 injury1.9%3.1%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened13.3%12.5%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication15.3%13.2%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine99.2%95.3%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers0.3%6.5%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control6.9%19.5%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table8.8%13.7%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission10.6%20.6%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit5.6%9.6%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.991.701.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.921.361.80better

‡ 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.

24.2% 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 40 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

24.2%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.3%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
33.3%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.40U.S. median 0.30
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.18hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.19hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.03hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 33.3% 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 36 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 0.40 therapist hours per resident per day in 2025Q4 — more than 70% of the 13,714 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 14% — 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 SNF24.2%CMS range 15.0–35.851.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024worse than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.3%CMS range 6.2–16.210.7%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 discharge33.3%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 discharge33.3%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 discharge33.3%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 identified100.0%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 dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 worsened0.0%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 hospitalization7.5%CMS range 4.3–14.37.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.691.02Oct 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

0.40
RN hours/ resident / day
0.59
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.72
Aide hours/ resident / day
2.70
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.35
RN hoursweekends
17.2%
Total nursing turnover
16.7%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 126 beds and averages 123.8 residents a day — about 98% 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 2.70 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.40 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.72 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 2.53 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.84 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.44 to 0.37 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 17% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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

Inspection trend

5 ↓
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-04-28)
8
at the previous standard inspection (2024-05-16)

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.

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.

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

  • Potential for harm · E2026-04-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 4/21/2026 to 4/28/2026, the facility did not ensure that food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food safety practice. Specifically, the walk-in freezer and walk-in refrigerator had open and undated items.The findings include:The facility policy and procedure, Food Expiration Dates, Date Marking, Storage, and Disposition of Food Items last reviewed on 10/2/2025, documented the facility shall maintain a standardized system for monitoring manufacturer expiration dates and internal use or discard dates. Food items unreadable, missing date markings must be discarded immediately. No improperly stored food item shall be served or made available for resident consumption. During an initial tour of the kitchen on 04/21/2026 at 9:25 AM, conducted with the Lead Cook, observation of the walk-in freezer revealed an opened and uncovered box of frozen nuggets and a box of frozen eggs stored without expiration dates; and bags of waffles, sweet potatoes and donuts were removed from their…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-28 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review and interviews during the recertification survey from 4/21/2026 through 4/28/2026, the facility did not ensure residents had the right to a dignified dining experience for one (1) (Resident #67) of four (4) residents reviewed for dignity. Specifically, the Certified Nurse Aide was observed standing over Resident #67 while assisting the resident with their meal. The findings include:The facility policy titled Dignity and Assistance During Dining or Feeding last date reviewed 7/10/2025, documented that staff providing feeding assistance shall sit at eye level with the resident whenever possible.Resident #67 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including hereditary and idiopathic neuropathy, depression and malnutrition.The Minimum Data Set (resident assessment) dated 2/6/2026 documented Resident #67 had moderately impaired cognition and functional limitation in range of motion, with impairment in both upper extremities. Resident #67 was dependent on staff for eating.The Comprehensive Care Plan, Potential for Altered Nutritional Status 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-28 · 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, record reviews and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 04/21/2026 to 04/28/2026, the facility did not ensure a person-centered comprehensive care plan was developed and/or implemented for two (2) of seven (7) residents (Resident #93 and #87) reviewed for activities of daily living. Specifically, 1) for Resident #93 a care plan was not developed for refusal of nail care. 2) for Resident #87 a comprehensive care plan was not developed to address the use of side rails.Findings include: 1. Resident # 93 had diagnoses including cerebral infarction, dysphagia and essential hypertension. The facility policy, Nail Care, revised 04/10/2025 documented in order to maintain the resident's dignity, prevent injury and infection, fingernails are to be maintained in a clean, short, well- manicured condition. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 04/04/2026 documented Resident #93 had impaired cognition, had no rejection of care, and had other behavioral symptoms…

    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 · D2026-04-28 · 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

    Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 04/21/ 2026 to 04/28/2026, the facility did not ensure each resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary care and services to maintain good personal hygiene for one (1) of seven (7) residents (Resident #25) reviewed for activities of daily living. Specifically, Resident #25, required dependent assistance with activities of daily living was observed sitting in a wet soiled diaper.Findings include:The facility policy Activities of Daily Living, last reviewed on 11/ 07/ 2023, documented residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition, grooming and personal and oral hygiene.Resident # 25 had diagnoses including Parkinson's disease with dyskinesia, cerebral infarction and functional quadriplegia.The quarterly Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 04/08/2026 documented the resident had impaired cognition, was frequently incontinent of bowel and…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-28 · tag F0700 — isolated
    Try different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews, and staff interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 4/21/2026 to 4/28/2026, the facility did not ensure residents were assessed for side rails and the resident or resident representative were informed of the risks and benefits of side rails or that they obtained informed consent prior to the installation of side rails for three (3) of five (5) residents (Residents #16, #63, and #77) reviewed for accident hazards. Specifically, Residents #16, #63, and #77 had bilateral side rails on their beds and there was no documented evidence they were assessed for the use of side rails prior to installation. There was no documented evidence that the residents and/or their representatives were informed of the risks and benefits of side rails, or that informed consent was obtained prior to installation of side rails. There were no care plans to address the use of side rails, and no physician orders. The findings are: The facility Side Rail policy revised 8/4/2022…

    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 · E2024-05-16 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — pattern
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification and abbreviated survey (NY00323734) from 5/9/24 to 5/16/24, the facility did not ensure adequate supervision was provided and that the resident's environment remained as free of accidents hazards as possible for 3 of 7 residents (Residents #89, #72, and #3) reviewed for accidents. Specifically,1) Resident #89 did not receive 1:1 supervision as per plan of care, resulting in a fall, 2) Resident #72 had multiple oral medications and eye drops (left by nursing) in their room on a dementia unit with twelve residents with wandering behaviors, and 3) Resident #3 had medicated creams (left by nursing) in their room on a dementia unit with twelve residents with wandering behaviors. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure, titled Accident Prevention/Falls last revised 12/15/2023 documented it was the policy of the facility to provide adequate supervision, assistance, and assistive devices to prevent accidents. 1. Resident…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-05-16 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review and interview conducted during the recertification survey from 5/9/2024 to 5/16/2024, the facility did not ensure each resident was treated with respect and dignity in an environment that promotes maintenance of their quality of life for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #33 and #105) reviewed for dignity. Specifically, 1, Resident #33 was observed on several occasions wearing socks with name labels that were visible on the outside of both socks, and 2, Resident #105 was noted with photographs depicting the resident in positioning devices on the wall above the head of the bed and visible from the door. The findings are: Policy and Procedure reviewed 4/18/2024 documented all residents have a right to a dignified existence including the right to privacy and confidentiality. 1. Resident #33 was admitted with diagnoses including Alzheimer Disease, Cancer and Depression. The 4/2/24 Quarterly Minimum Data Set documented Resident #33 was rarely/never understood, used a wheelchair, was dependent for upper and lower body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear,…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-16 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
    Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview conducted during the recertification survey from 5/9/24 to 5/16/24, the facility did not ensure that the call bell system was accessible for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #123) reviewed for environment. Specifically, multiple observations revealed that the call bell designated for Resident #123, was not within the resident's reach. The findings are: Resident #123 was admitted with diagnosis including but not limited to major depressive disorder, overactive bladder, and poly-osteoarthritis. The Risk for Falls care plan dated 4/5/24 documented interventions including answering calls for assistance promptly and call bell to be within reach. The admission Minimum Data Set ( resident assessment tool) dated 4/11/24 documented Resident #123 had intact cognition, required setup with eating, was dependent with toileting and transfers, and required extensive assist with bed mobility. Furthermore, the admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #123 had…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-05-16 · 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 observation, interview and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 5/09/24-5/16/2024, it was determined that for one (Resident #3) of seven residents reviewed for accidents, the facility did not ensure a comprehensive care plan that included measurable goals and interventions based on resident assessment was provided to maintain the resident's highest practicable physical well-being. Specifically, Resident #3 did not have a care plan in place for self-medication administration. The Findings Are: Resident #3 was admitted with diagnosis including but not limited to bilateral primary osteoarthritis of the knee, polymyalgia rheumatica, and primary osteoarthritis of the shoulder. The Comprehensive Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented that Resident #3 had intact cognition, required moderate assist with toileting, transfers, and bed mobility, and was independent with eating. On 05/09/24 at 11:08 AM, Resident #3 was observed in their room and multiple tubes of medicated creams…

    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 · D2024-05-16 · 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 observation, record review and interview conducted during the recertification survey from 5/9/24 to 5/16/24, the facility did not ensure 1 of 3 residents (Resident #57), reviewed for positioning, received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. Specifically, Resident #57 was observed on multiple occasions sitting in their wheelchair without their footrest extender. The findings are: The facility policy titled, Wheelchair and Positioning Devices, reviewed 8/15/2023 documented it was the policy of the rehabilitation department to determine and provide the appropriate wheelchair and positioning devices for residents. Resident #57 had diagnoses which included depression, dementia, and spinal stenosis, The Activities of Daily Living Functioning Care Plan dated 1/24/23 documented the resident required 1-person extensive assistance with locomotion in wheelchair and 2-person dependent assistance with transfers. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (resident assessment tool) dated 2/25/24 documented Resident #57 had severely impaired, impairment on both…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-16 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review and interview conducted during the recertification survey from 5/9/2024 to 5/16/2024, the facility did not ensure that residents received treatment and services to prevent pressure ulcers for 2 of 8 residents (Residents #105 and #33 ) reviewed for pressure ulcers. Specifically, 1)Resident #105 was observed without a thigh cushion to off load their heels as ordered by the physician, and 2) Resident #33 who was assessed at high risk for pressure ulcers was observed on multiple occasions with their right heel resting on the metal wheelchair foot rest. The findings are: 1. Resident #105 was admitted with diagnoses which included dementia, depression, and glaucoma. The physician order dated 3/5/2024, documented during supine (lying on back) in bed put heels up cushion under thighs, and black skill care abductor-contracture cushion between lower legs and feet, except for during skin care and hygiene. The Braden Scale completed on 3/25/2024 documented the resident was a moderate risk for pressure ulcers. The Annual Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool)…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-16 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, and staff interview during the recertification survey from 5/9/24 to 5/16/24, the facility did not ensure that needed services, care and equipment were provided to assure that a resident with limited range of motion and mobility maintained or improved function based on the resident's clinical condition for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #89) reviewed for position and mobility. Specifically, Resident #89 was observed on 3 occasions without a right resting hand splint in place as ordered by the physician to prevent further contractures. Findings include: The facility policy & procedure titled Splinting reviewed 2/12/24 documented the purpose, indications, treatment procedure, and wearing schedules of splints. Resident #89 had diagnoses which included primary osteoarthritis, non-Alzheimer's dementia, and frontotemporal neurocognitive disorder. The medical note dated 1/11/24 documented Resident #89 was seen for slight swelling to right hand/fingers. Decreased range of motion to the right hand, wrist, and fingers. Minimal swelling noted, no tenderness.…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    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 observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey from 5/9/24 to 5/16/24, the facility did not properly establish and/or maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment. Specifically, 1) the facility did not ensure that an infection surveillance plan based on facility assessment was implemented for identifying, tracking, and monitoring infections, communicable diseases, and outbreaks, 2) the facility water management plan had not been reviewed or updated since 2019, and 3) staff did not perform proper hand hygiene during dining for Resident #21. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Infection Control Program dated 1/12/2010 and last reviewed 4/2/2024, documented a surveillance program was essential to the prevention and control of infection within the facility. Its purpose was to detect and record nosocomial infections in order to institute effective control measures. Data was recorded on resident surveillance reports and infection line listing reports. 1. The infection…

    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

“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 EPIC HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT — 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 5 of 53.6+1.4 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.8+1.2 vs chain
Staffing 2 of 52.4-0.4 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 54.8+0.2 vs chain
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.6★, 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
JOZEFOVIC, HERBERTIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF70%since 10/01/2025
NEUMAN, MARKIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF20%since 10/01/2025
SINGER, BARUCHIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF10%since 10/01/2025
ANDERSON, MARITESIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL—since 10/01/2025
BONILLA, MADELYNIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF—since 10/01/2025
FEMINELLA, DANIELLEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF—since 10/01/2025
JOZEFOVIC, YOSEFIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY—since 10/01/2025
KREISMANN, ARIIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF—since 10/01/2025
MANISCALCO, VINCENTIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF—since 10/01/2025
MASTERSON, EILEENIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF—since 10/01/2025
MCPEEK, KATEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF—since 10/01/2025
MOZDIERZ, SANDYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF—since 10/01/2025
PANDYA, DHIMANTKUMARIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF—since 01/05/2026
URGOLA, SCOTTIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF—since 10/01/2025
EPIC HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNF—since 10/01/2025
FCA PARTNERS LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNF—since 10/01/2025
HMM & CO., LLPOrganizationADP OF THE SNF—since 10/01/2025
LONG TERM SOLUTIONS, INC.OrganizationADP OF THE SNF—since 10/01/2025
MED-NET COMPLIANCE LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNF—since 10/01/2025
MEDFIRST INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNF—since 10/01/2025
MOKRAY ACQUISITION I LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNF—since 10/01/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 40 rows in the source record cover these 21 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

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

Follow the money — this home’s finances

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

$18.8M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-8.5%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.6M
Related-party expense8% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 75%Medicare 8%Other / private 17%

About 75% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.6M 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

$457per resident / day
operating cost
$13,899per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$421per 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 2026-09-01 — CMS provider number 335687. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-28, 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