Life Care Center Of Medina

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.

58.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 107 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 82.3% 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 79 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 0.31 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 49% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% 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 149 beds and averages 108.9 residents a day — about 73% occupied, or roughly 40 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.80 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.76 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.27 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 3.55 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.90 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.91 to 0.40 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 29% 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

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

This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.

Inspection deficiencies

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

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.

33 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 23 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-13 · 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 observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure appropriate infection control measures were maintained during wound care for Resident #91, who required Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). This affected one resident (#91) of three residents reviewed for infection control. The facility identified seven residents residing in the Memory Care Unit who required EBP. The facility census was 105. Findings include: Record review for Resident #91 revealed an admission date of 12/09/25. Diagnoses included encounter for orthopedic aftercare following surgical amputation, diabetes mellitus, infection and inflammatory reaction due to indwelling urethral catheter, urinary retention, long term use of antibiotics, peripheral vascular disease, and acquired absence of left toes. Review of the Medicare five-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #91 was cognitively intact. Resident #91 used a walker and had impairment on one side 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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-01-25 · 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 observation and interview the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen and nursing unit refrigerator. This had to the potential to affect 116 of 118 residents in the facility as Residents #4 and #425 received nothing by mouth. The facility census was 118. Findings include: During the initial tour of the kitchen on 01/22/24 from 9:09 A.M. to 9:45 A.M. with Dietary Manager (DM) #361 revealed the outside door of the reach in cooler had various food stains/smears and the inside of the cooler's bottom shelf had various food crumbs and debris. On the counter where the coffee machine was located were dried coffee stains on the counter and the along the side of the coffee maker. The floor by the oven was dirty with dried food and small bits of paper on the floor. Interview on 01/22/24 between 9:09 A.M. to 9:45 A.M. with DM #361 verified the above identified findings. Observation on 01/23/24 at 10:38 A.M. of the nursing unit refrigerators located on the House 2 unit revealed brownish food stain in butter dish, dried brownish food splatter along the inside…

  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 · D2024-01-25 · 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

  Based on interviews, observations, record review, and policy review the facility failed to ensure Resident #84's call light functioned in a manner to ensure timely service. This affected one resident (Resident #84) of twelve residents reviewed for accommodation of needs. The census was 118. Findings included: Review of the medical record for Resident #84 revealed an admission date of 12/11/23. Diagnoses included encephalopathy, hypertension, heart failure, anxiety and type two diabetes mellitus. Interview and observation on 01/22/24 from 12:54 P.M. through 2:10 P.M. with Resident #84 revealed she was lying in her bed with her legs bent and moving up and down, eyes opened only when spoken to and with a grimace on her face. When asked about if she was in pain, Resident #84 responded yes and asked for help. Call light was turned on at 12:56 P.M. At 1:19 P.M. this surveyor stepped outside the resident room to check to see if the call light system was functioning. The light above the door was lit up. Resident #84's room was located at the end of the hallway. It was the last room of eight…

  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 · D2024-01-25 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate advanced directives were in place for Resident #110. This affected one resident (Resident #110) of 25 residents reviewed for advanced directives. Findings include: Record review for Resident #110 revealed an admission date of 11/09/23. Diagnosis included surgical aftercare following surgery on the digestive system, muscle weakness, cognitive communication deficit, moderate protein calorie malnutrition, hypertensive heart and chronic kidney disease with heart failure. Resident #110 was admitted to hospice services on 12/22/23. Record review of the Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #110 was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #110 required assistants with activities of daily living. Resident #110 had medically complex conditions and had a condition or chronic disease that may result in life expectancy of less than six months. Record review of the physician order dated 11/09/23 in the Electronic…

  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 before2024-01-25 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain clean and sanitary floors in a resident's room. This affected two residents (#7 and #32) of five residents reviewed for environment. The facility census was 118. Findings include: Observation on 01/22/24 at 10:34 A.M. of Resident #7 and #32's floor revealed under the sink a large dark stains that appeared like dirt and also along the edge of the molding. Follow-up observation on 01/24/24 at 11:17 A.M. of Resident #7 and #32's floor revealed the large black dirt like stain on still on the floor under sink. Observed Resident #32 and a visitor and interview at this time the visitor stated the sink had a leak a while ago, but it was fixed but after the stain came. Resident #32's visitor then stated he wondered if it was mold. Interview on 01/24/24 at 11:27 A.M. with Housekeeping Supervisor (HS) #393 revealed the housekeeping staff cleaned residents' rooms and the common areas daily. Observation on 01/24/24 at 11:30 A.M. with HS #393 of Resident #7 and #32's room floor revealed the large black stain under…

  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 · D2024-01-25 · 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 interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to investigate and report an allegation of missing money from Resident #2's purse. This affected one resident (Resident #2) of one resident reviewed for abuse, neglect, and misappropriation. Findings include: Record review for Resident #2 revealed an admission date of 12/18/16. Diagnosis included muscle weakness and need for assistants with personal care. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 was cognitively intact. Resident #2 had an impairment to one side of the upper extremity and used a wheelchair. Interview on 01/22/24 at 10:42 A.M. with Resident #2 revealed a few weeks ago she had $31.00 missing from her purse. Resident #2 revealed the administrator and social worker said there was nothing they could do about it and her money had to be in a locked box. Resident #2 revealed they provided her with a locked box. Observation revealed Resident #2 had a grey locked box in 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 · D2024-01-25 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  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 interview the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurate related to nutrition for Resident #8 and #99. This affected two residents (Resident #8 and #99) of 28 residents reviewed for comprehensive assessments. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #99 revealed an admission date of 10/05/22. Diagnoses included dementia with agitation, muscle weakness, dysphagia, and protein-calorie malnutrition. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had severely impaired cognition and had received tube feedings while as a resident. Further review of Resident #99's medical record revealed no documentation the resident had received tube feedings. Interview on 01/24/24 at 2:33 P.M. with Registered Dietitian (RD) #701 stated Resident #99 had never received tube feedings. Interview on 01/25/24 at 9:11 A.M. with MDS Nurse #311 verified she marked in error that Resident #99 received tube feedings on the MDS assessment.…

  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 · D2024-01-25 · tag F0646 — isolated
  Notify the appropriate authorities when residents with MD or ID services has a significant change in condition.
  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 staff interview the facility failed to ensure the appropriate state agency (The Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services) was notified of significant change in a residents Pre-admission Screen (PASRR). This affected one (Resident #49) of two residents reviewed for PASRR status. The facility census was 118. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #49 revealed an admission date of 08/11/20. Diagnoses included but were not limited to schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, major depressive order, morbid obesity, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Review of the most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #49 was cognitively intact and required partial/moderate assistance for bathing and dressing, limited assistance of one for toileting, and supervision for bed mobility, transfer, and personal hygiene. No behaviors were noted. Review of section D question one 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 · D2024-01-25 · 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 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #38 revealed an admission date of 05/13/22. Diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder, bipolar, type II diabetes, and Alzheimer's dementia. Review of the quarterly Minimum Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #38 revealed she had intact cognition and required partial to moderate assistance with showers. Review of the plan of care dated 01/03/24 revealed the resident has potential for declines in activities of daily living (ADL) and self-care related to Alzheimer's and schizophrenia. Intervention included offering and encouraging showers twice weekly. Review of the shower documentation for January revealed Resident #38 received a shower on 01/01/24, 01/04/24, 01/15/24 and 01/18/24, on 01/08/24 and 01/11/24 the shower was documented NA, meaning not applicable the shower did not occur, and on 01/22/24 the resident refused her shower. There was no documented evidence that Resident #38 received a shower from 01/05/24 through 01/14/24. Interview on 01/22/23 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-25 · 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, interview, record review and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident #2 was safely positioned while in bed, in a manner to prevent the resident from falling out of bed during personal care provided by staff. This affected one resident (Resident #2) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 118. Findings include: Record review for Resident #2 revealed an admission date of 12/18/16. Diagnosis included muscle weakness, need for assistants with personal care, chronic pain syndrome, and morbid severe obesity. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 required extensive assistants of two staff for bed mobility. Review of the most recent Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 was cognitively intact. Resident #2 had an impairment to one side of the upper extremity and used a wheelchair. Resident #2 was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Resident #2 was dependent for toileting 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

“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

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA — 194 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 27 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

3 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.

About 72% 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 $2.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% 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 OH