White Oaks Rehabilitation and Nursing Center

Location & what’s nearby

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

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

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

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

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

39.0% 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 425 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 84.7% 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 189 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 0.46 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 77% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 21% 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 177.2 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 23 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.73 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.54 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.37 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 3.51 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.82 on weekdays — 8% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.59 to 0.44 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 22% is below the national median of 45%.

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

Inspection trend

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.

24 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 13 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · Gcited beforedisputed · IDR2025-11-20 · 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 observation, interviews and record review during an abbreviated survey conducted on 10/28/2025 for case number 2616775, the facility failed to ensure one (1) (Resident #1) of three (3) residents was free from accidents. Specifically, Certified Nursing Assistant #1 failed to follow the care plan for Resident #1 requiring a two-person assist. On 09/11/2025, Certified Nursing Assistant #1 transferred Resident #1 from their wheelchair to their bed alone resulting in a fractured left humerus (upper arm bone). This resulted in actual harm to Resident #1 that is not Immediate Jeopardy.Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis that include vascular dementia (a decline in thinking skills caused by conditions that damage blood vessels and reduce or block blood flow to the brain,) cerebral vascular accident (stroke,) and osteoarthritis. On 08/21/2025, a Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) Brief Interview of Mental Status was completed for Resident #1 and documented a score of 99 indicating severe…

  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 · F2025-09-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the recertification initiated on 09/02/2025 and completed on 09/08/2025, the facility did not ensure that food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This was identified during the Kitchen task observation on 09/02/2025 and during the Dining Task on 09/02/2025 at the lunch meal. Specifically, frozen food items (tiramisu, broccoli florets, pizza slices, a tray of diet pudding, regular pudding and peaches, roast beef, Brussel Sprouts) in the walk-in freezer were stored undated and or with opened packaging. Specifically, the facility did not monitor the temperature of cold food items (sandwiches, yogurt, milk) at the time of meal service. Upon request, temperatures were taken and found to be above the standard range (cold food temperatures should be 40 degrees Fahrenheit or below) for food service safety (United States Department of Agriculture). The finding is:A facility policy and procedure titled Food Storage, dated 08/2024, documented all perishable…

  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 · D2025-09-08 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolated
  Ensure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
  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, interviews, and record review during the Recertification Survey initiated on 09/02/2025 and completed on 09/08/2025, the facility did not ensure each resident had the right to be treated with respect and dignity, including the right to be free from any physical restraints imposed for the purposes of discipline or convenience, and not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms. This was identified for one (1) (Resident #36) of one (1) resident reviewed for Physical Restraints. Specifically, on 09/02/2025, Resident #36 was observed sleeping in a bed with the bed positioned between another empty bed on the right side and a Geri chair on the left side, thereby blocking the resident from getting out of the bed. During an interview on 09/05/2025, the resident's assigned Certified Nursing Assistant #5 acknowledged they intentionally placed the resident's bed between another bed and the Geri chair to prevent the resident from getting out of bed.The finding is:The facility policy titled…

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

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-08 · 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

  Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 09/02/2025 and completed on 09/08/2025, the facility did not ensure that each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. This was identified for one (Resident #12) of five residents reviewed for Accidents. Specifically, Resident #12 was at risk for elopement and had a physician's order for a Wanderguard (a wearable bracelet for residents at risk for wandering, which causes an alarm when the resident approaches a restricted area). On 08/01/2025, the resident removed the Wanderguard; however, no new interventions were put in place to ensure the resident was appropriately supervised and did not remove the Wanderguard. During an observation on 09/05/2025, Resident #12 was not wearing their Wanderguard, and the assigned staff were not aware that the resident did not have their Wanderguard in place.The finding is:The facility policy titled Code Alert System/Code Alert Bracelet, last reviewed 01/2022, documented Code Alert System is designed to trigger…

  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 · D2025-09-08 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
  Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
  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, initiated on 9/2/2025 and completed on 9/8/2025, the facility did not ensure that each resident who required respiratory care was provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences. This was identified for one (1) (Resident #129) of three (3) residents reviewed for Respiratory Care. Specifically, Resident #129 did not receive pulse oximetry (oxygen saturation) monitoring (measures the oxygen saturation in blood) as recommended by the Physician in a progress note dated 09/01/2025; however, the Physician did not write an order for their recommendation. The finding is:Resident #129 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Congestive Heart Failure, and Schizophrenia. The 08/11/2025 quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 12, indicating the resident had moderate cognitive impairment; received…

  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 · D2025-09-08 · 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 09/02/2025 and completed on 09/08/2025 the facility did not ensure that it maintained an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infections for 1) one (Resident #16) of one resident reviewed for Pressure Ulcers and for one (1) (Resident #111) of three (3) residents reviewed for Transmission-Based Precautions. Specifically, 1) during the wound care observation for Resident #16 (bilateral heel wounds) on 09/04/2025, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 did not perform hand hygiene during the various steps of the wound care treatment process, allowed the cleansed heel wounds to come in contact with a dirty surface, and did not re-cleanse the heel wounds. 2) Resident # 111 was placed on Contact Isolation for Klebsiella Pneumoniae (a bacterial infection often spread through person-to-person contact or contaminated surfaces and equipment) 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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-03-09 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
  Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews conducted during a Recertification Survey initiated on 3/4/2024 and completed on 3/9/2024, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown sources, were reported to the New York State Department of Health. This was identified for one (Resident #119) of eight residents reviewed for Accidents. Specifically, Resident #119, with a diagnosis of Dementia and impaired cognition, sustained the following unwitnessed injuries of unknown origin 1a) a laceration to the right arm which required transfer to the hospital and treatment of 16 staples on 12/6/2023, 1b) ecchymotic (bruise) area to the left buttock on 2/27/2024 and 1c) ecchymotic area to left upper inner forearm and right outer arm on 2/29/2024. The facility did not report Resident #119's injuries of unknown origin to the New York State Department of Health. The findings are: The facility's policy titled, Abuse…

  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 · D2024-03-09 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
  Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
  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 conducted during a Recertification Survey initiated on 3/4/2024 and completed on 3/9/2024, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations were thoroughly investigated in response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property, including injuries of unknown source. This was identified for one (Resident #119) of eight residents reviewed for Accidents. Specifically, Resident #119 with a diagnosis of Dementia and impaired cognition sustained the following unwitnessed injuries of unknown origin 1a) a laceration to the right arm which required transfer to the hospital and treatment of 16 staples on 12/6/2023, 1b) ecchymotic (bruise) area to the left buttock on 2/27/2024 and 1c) ecchymotic area to the left upper inner forearm and the right outer arm on 2/29/2024. Resident #119 was observed with injuries of unknown origin on three occasions. The facility did not thoroughly investigate the incidents to identify 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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-03-09 · tag F0655 — isolated
  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 record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/4/2024 and completed on 3/9/2024 the facility did not ensure that a Baseline Care Plan for each resident was developed that included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality care within 48 hours of admission. This was identified for one (Resident #78) of four residents reviewed for skin conditions. Specifically, Resident #78 was admitted with impaired skin integrity, and a baseline care plan was not developed within 48 hours of the resident's admission. The finding is: The facility's policy titled, Care Planning last revised 1/2022 documented that upon admission the baseline care plan will be initiated and completed within 48 hours as per the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services guidelines. Resident #78 was admitted with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, and a Stage 1 Sacral Pressure Ulcer. The admission…

  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 · D2024-03-09 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
  Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
  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 initiated on 3/4/2024 and completed on 3/9/2024 the facility did not ensure each resident's Comprehensive Care Plan was reviewed and revised to reflect the current needs of each resident. This was identified for one (Resident #78) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers and one (Resident #171) of two residents reviewed for edema. Specifically, 1) Resident #78's Comprehensive Care Plan was not updated to reflect the resident's use of the heel off-loading medical surgical shoe or offloading the heels; and 2) Resident #171's Comprehensive Care Plan was not updated to reflect the use of lower leg compression wraps to treat bilateral lower leg edema (swelling caused by too much fluid trapped in the body's tissues). The findings are: The facility's policy, titled Care Planning, last reviewed in January 2022, documented care planning will be implemented through the integration of assessment findings, consideration 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 · D2024-03-09 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
  Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
  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 staff interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/4/2024 and completed on 3/9/2024, the facility did not ensure that services provided or arranged by the facility outlined by the comprehensive plan of care meet professional standards of care. This was identified for one (Resident #169) of eight residents reviewed for medication administration. Specifically, during a medication pass observation on 3/6/2024 at 6:25 AM for Resident #169, Registered Nurse #4 removed a Levothyroxine (medication used to treat underactive thyroid gland) 50 micrograms tablet from a blister pack that had Resident #49's identification label and then administered the medication to Resident #169. The finding is: The facility Medication Administration policy and procedure updated 11/2023 documented medications are administered to residents in a timely and accurate manner by a Licensed nurse who compares the medication name, strength, and dosage schedule on the medication administration…

  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

“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.

“Disputed” is CMS’s own flag, not our reading: the CMS deficiency file records whether the home has formally contested a citation, and we reproduce that. IDR is Informal Dispute Resolution, run by the state survey agency that wrote the citation; IIDR is Independent Informal Dispute Resolution, a separate process before an outside entity, available when CMS has proposed a civil money penalty. They are different processes and we mark them differently. Two things to hold at once. A disputed citation is still a citation — it was written by a surveyor, it stands on the record unless and until it is changed, and we neither hide it nor discount it. And we cannot tell you how the dispute came out: CMS publishes that a citation is under dispute, not the outcome, so a tag marked here may since have been upheld, reduced, or deleted, and an unmarked tag may have been disputed and resolved before this file was cut. Ask the home what it disputed and why — it is entitled to tell you, and the answer is often the most informative thing on this page.

Fines & penalties

$8,278 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $8,278 — penalty dated 2025-11-20

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.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 3 rows in the source record cover these 1 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 $6.6M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 19% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

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

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in NY