Elderwood At Waverly

Location & what’s nearby

Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

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

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

61.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 304 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 54.9% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 164 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 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 23% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 23% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 200 beds and averages 178.9 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 21 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.66 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.36 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.71 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 2.18 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.86 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.42 to 0.22 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 68% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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

Inspection trend

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

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

26 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 14 are one tap away and print in full.

• Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2026-03-11 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — pattern
  Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record reviews and interviews during the facility failed to protect residents from sexual abuse for six (6) of six (6) residents (Residents #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, and #8). Specifically, Resident #2 was found in separate sexually inappropriate situations with six (6) residents, all of whom had impaired cognitive function with the exception of Resident #5. The facility's failure to protect residents from sexual abuse placed all 176 residents in the facility at risk of abuse. This resulted in actual harm for Residents #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, and #8 that was Immediate Jeopardy and Substantial Quality of Care for residents' health and safety. Findings include: The facility policy, Abuse Prevention, Identification, Investigation, Protection and Reporting, dated 04/30/2024, documented all staff would be trained on prevention of all forms of abuse. Training would include recognizing forms of abuse. Prevention included on-going assessments, care planning and monitoring of residents with needs and behaviors which might lead to conflict or neglect including wandering into other's rooms and…

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

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Immediate jeopardy · J2025-01-30 · 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews during the abbreviated survey (NY00369096), the facility failed to establish mechanisms for documenting and communicating the resident's choice regarding Advance Directives to the staff responsible for the resident's care for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #1 updated their Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment to reflect a change in their wishes from cardiopulmonary resuscitation (attempt to restart the heart) to do not resuscitate (allow natural death). The paper medical record (Medical Order for Life Sustaining Treatment form) and electronic medical record code status orders did not match to reflect the resident's Advance Directives wishes to allow natural death (do not resuscitate). Subsequently, when the resident was found without signs of life, nursing staff verified their status with the prior Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment form and initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation. When nursing staff noted in…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-06 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interviews during the abbreviated survey (iQIES reference #2740895), the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical abuse for one (1) of seven (7) residents (Resident #1) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #1 was combative during care, struck Support Aide #2, and Support Aide #2 struck the resident back in the left shoulder. The 04/30/2024 facility policy, Abuse Prevention, Identification, Investigation, Protection and Reporting documented all staff would be trained on prevention of all forms of abuse. Training would include recognizing forms of abuse. The facility would ensure supervision of staff on all shifts would occur to identify inappropriate staff behaviors, such as using derogatory language, rough handling, ignoring residents while giving care, and directing residents that need assistance with the bathroom to urinate or defecate in their beds. Prevention included on-going assessments, care planning and monitoring of residents with needs and behaviors which might lead to conflict or neglect such as physically aggressive behavior such…

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

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · F2025-03-28 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — widespread
  Regularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 3/24/2025-3/28/2025, the facility failed to conduct regular inspections of all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails as part of a regular maintenance program to identify areas of possible entrapment for 7 of 7 resident beds (beds for Resident #15, #29, #31, #38, #91, #99, and #106) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #15's mattress was not securely placed within the bedframe brackets; Resident #29's mattress did not fit within the bedframe mattress brackets resulting in a gap between the mattress and the assist rail; Resident #99's mattress was not securely placed in the bedframe brackets resulting in an entrapment zone that exceeded the United States Food and Drug Administration's recommended dimensional limits; and Residents #31's, #38's, #91's, and #106's assist rails were not routinely inspected for possible zones of entrapment. The facility policy, Bed Rail use (Side Rails, Assist Rails, Transfer Rails, Bed Enablers), revised 9/27/2018, documented upon installation and routinely 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.

  Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-28 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
  Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 3/24/2025 to 3/28/2025, the facility did not ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #142) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #142 was not provided with supervision and maximum cueing with eating and was not provided meals in the dining room as planned. Findings include: The facility policy [Activities of Daily Living] Assistance and Supervision. approved 1/18/2018, documented the Unit Manager and licensed practical nurse team leaders monitored the activity of daily living and supervision provided to the residents and gave appropriate guidance and assistance to nursing staff. The certified nurse aides provided the activities of daily living assistance and supervision to their assigned residents. The personal care profile and care plan were referenced for the type of activities of daily living 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 · Dcited before2025-03-28 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00333993) surveys conducted 3/24/2025-3/28/2025, the facility did not ensure residents received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 2 of 13 residents (Residents #164, and #171) reviewed. Specifically, -Resident #171 had dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), was on aspiration (inhaling food/fluid into the lungs) precautions and the resident was provided ice chips without a physician order or supervision. -Resident #164 was at high risk for elopement (leaving premises/safe area without facility knowledge), the resident frequently wandered in non-residential areas, and there was no documented evidence of a plan to limit the resident's wandering to potentially unsafe areas. Additionally, the resident's wander alert device was not checked for function as planned. Findings include: The facility policy Aspiration Precautions Guidelines, revised 7/24/2018 documented if orally fed, maintain the resident's head of bed…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-03-28 · tag F0744 — failed to care for residents with dementia — isolated
  Provide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with dementia.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00343302 and NY00370767) surveys conducted 3/24/2025-3/28/2025 the facility did not ensure a resident who displayed or was diagnosed with dementia, received the appropriate treatment and services to maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 6 residents (Residents #143) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #143's telepsychiatry recommendations for non-pharmacological interventions for behavioral symptoms were not implemented. Findings include: The facility policy SEASONS Memory Care Program, updated 12/20/2019, documented the program provided the residents a safe environment while enlarging their life with appropriate and purposeful activity that accommodated the individual's strengths, interests, and needs while promoting autonomy and assisting them in maintaining their level of ability. This was to reduce anxiety and boredom driven behaviors. The facility policy Behavior Monitoring, approved 2/10/2020, documented the facility ensured that…

  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 before2025-03-28 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
  Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 3/24/2025-3/28/2025, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled and stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for 2 of 5 medication rooms (Unit 1 North and Unit 3) reviewed. Specifically, lorazepam (a controlled substance) was stored in unlocked refrigerators (not double locked) that were not permantly affixed in Unit 1 North's and Unit 3's medication rooms. The facility policy Medication Rooms on Nursing Units, revised 7/30/2024, documented a double locked box in the refrigerator would be used for the storage of controlled substances that required refrigeration. The facility policy Medications Administration Methods, revised 1/25/2024, documented controlled substances should be stored in a double-locked cabinet until immediately before administration. During an observation on 3/25/2025 at 9:22 AM, the medication refrigerator in the Unit 1 North medication room had an exterior lock on the main door that was not engaged and a locked interior drawer…

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

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-28 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolated
  Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00333993) surveys conducted 3/24/2025-3/28/2025, the facility did not ensure the provision of food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 2 of 2 lunch meals tested (3/24/2025 and 3/28/2025 lunch meals). Specifically, the 3/24/2025 lunch meal entree was difficult to cut; and the 3/28/2025 lunch meal was not served at palatable and safe temperatures. Findings include: The facility policy Food Temperature Requirements and Holding Time, revised 6/28/2019, documented the Director of Dining Services or designee was responsible for assuring the proper temperatures and holding times of foods were maintained during the preparation and service of meals. The 3/24/2025 posted lunch menu documented cube steak with brown gravy, garlic mashed potatoes, peas and onions, and pineapple chunks. The following observations and interviews were made during the 3/24/2025 lunch meal: - at 12:41 PM Resident #383 stated sometimes the food was served cold and tasted bland. - at…

  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 before2025-03-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolated
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 3/24/2025-3/28/2025, the facility did not ensure food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards in the main kitchen. Specifically, the main kitchen had food items past their expiration dates, undated food items, the walk-in freezer had ice buildup on an open box of food, and food was stored on the floor. Findings include: The facility policy Dietary Food and Supply Orders-Storage, revised 10/26/2018, documented food and non-food supplies were stored in a food storeroom and in refrigeration or freezer areas of the kitchen, in conformance with applicable sections of the New York State Health Code, rules and regulations. Containers of food were stored at a minimum of six inches above the floor to protect the food from splash and other contamination. Food was protected from contamination by dust, insects, rodents, unclean equipment and utensils, unnecessary handling, drainage and overhead leakage at all times during storage. Food removed from…

  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 · D2025-03-28 · tag F0836 — isolated
  Ensure the facility is licensed under applicable State and local law and operates and provides services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes, and with accepted professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review during the recertification survey conducted 3/24/2025 through 3/28/2025, the facility did not operate and provide services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes, and with accepted professional standards and principles that apply to professionals providing services in such a facility. Specifically, the facility did not provide the facility matrix for all residents and access to all resident electronic health records requested by the New York State Department of Health (NYS DOH) surveillance team in a timely manner. Findings include: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services survey form Entrance Conference Worksheet provided to the Administrator/designee upon survey entrance documented the following items were required during the recertification survey: - the complete matrix for all residents within 4 hours of entrance. - access to all resident electronic health records and specific information on how surveyors could access the electronic health record outside of the conference room by the end…

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

  Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-30 · 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 during the abbreviated survey (NY00369577), the facility did not ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #2) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #2 did not receive assistance at meals as care planned. Findings include: The facility policy, Activities of Daily Living Assistance and Supervision, revised 1/4/2018 documented the Unit Manager/designee would ensure that a plan of care for receiving activities of daily living assistance and/or supervision was incorporated into the daily nursing care of each resident. Resident #2 had diagnoses including Alzheimer disease and self-feeding difficulties. The 11/28/2024 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition, did not reject care, required partial/moderate assistance with eating, and received a mechanically altered diet. The Comprehensive Care Plan updated on 12/5/2024 documented the…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Fines & penalties

$120,884 in federal fines across 2 penalties.

• $110,520 — penalty dated 2026-03-11
• $10,364 — penalty dated 2025-01-30

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

Part of a chain

This home belongs to ELDERWOOD — 17 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

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

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 5 rows in the source record cover these 3 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

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

This home reported $3.7M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. 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

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