Monarch Meadows Nursing And Rehabilitation

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.

55.5% 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 83 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 36.8% 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 57 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 0.37 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 63% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% 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 50 beds and averages 46.6 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 3 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 3.79 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.79 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.16 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 3.43 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.94 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.90 to 0.52 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% is about the same as 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 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.

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.

18 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 7 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · Gcited before2021-07-08 · 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 staff interviews, the facility failed to provide appropriate supervision to a resident while eating that was at high risk for choking. This resulted in actual harm when Resident #11 was left unsupervised alone, in the room to eat and the resident choked on food, requiring the Heimlich Maneuver to be performed. Subsequently the resident developed aspiration pneumonia requiring treatment. The facility failed to provide supervision again for the resident during a meal observation of the resident eating alone in the room. This affected one (#11) of the three residents sampled for assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL). The facility census was 48. Findings include: Record review for Resident #11 revealed an admission date of 12/01/16, with the following diagnoses: abnormal posture, kyphosis of the cervicothoracic region (abnormal curvature of the spine at the neck), dysphagia, and muscle wasting and atrophy. This resident had no known allergies. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 03/24/21, revealed this…

  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 · Fcited before2025-09-18 · 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 observations staff interviews, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to store and prepare foods and maintain the kitchen in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect 46 residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility census was 47. Findings include: Observation on 09/15/25 at 8:45 A.M. of the kitchen revealed the following concerns: In the handwashing area, the garbage container was filled with used towels and was not covered. In the walk-in refrigerator, there was an unsealed bowl of cottage cheese with no label and no date. There was a container of chopped ham with no label and dated 09/11/25 and a container of cottage cheese dated 09/11/25. There were five plates of salads with no label and no date. In the area of food preparation equipment area, there was a large build of grease around the deep fryer around all four edges with apparat grease drips down the sides of the equipment. The microwave table had food debris drips down the sides and there was dark brown debris on the wall adjacent along the floor cove basing. Along 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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-18 · 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 staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure signed Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) paperwork was present in the chart for a resident who requested DNR code status. This affected one (#52) of 19 residents reviewed for advance directives. The facility census was 47. Findings include:Closed record review for Resident #51 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included metabolic encephalopathy, diabetes mellitus, Alzheimer's disease, and seizures. Review of the physician's order, dated [DATE], revealed an order for the resident to be Do Not Resuscitate - Comfort Care Arrest (DNRCCA) code status. There was no DNR paperwork found in Resident #51's medical record. The nursing progress note, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #51 became unresponsive. Writer unable to find a pulse and began chest compressions. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) bagged resident until Registered Nurse (RN) took over. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) arrived. Telephone interview on [DATE]…

  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 · D2025-09-18 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
  Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified timely of a resident's change in condition. This affected one (#5) of one resident reviewed for notification of change in condition. The facility census was 47.Findings include: Record review for Resident #5 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included respiratory failure, history of falling, difficulty walking, osteoporosis, and lack of coordination. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #5 had intact cognition. Review of the nursing notes on 05/23/25 at 5:59 A.M., Resident #5 had a witnessed fall. The resident reported pain of the right thigh. Former Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #200 documented to monitor the area. There was no documentation the physician was notified of Resident #5's fall and pain in the right thigh. The nursing notes revealed Resident #5 began to complain of right shoulder pain at 6:07…

  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 · D2025-09-18 · 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 staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were coded accurately. This affected one (#4) of 19 residents reviewed for MDS assessments. The facility census was 47. Findings include:Record review for Resident #4 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder, ventricular dementia, and anxiety disorder. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for 07/2025 revealed Resident #4 was administered Olanzapine (an antipsychotic medication) and utilized a Wanderguard (a wander/elopement alarm) every day of the month. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 07/21/25, revealed Resident #5 did not receive antipsychotic medications since admission/entry or reentry or the prior OBRA assessment, whichever was more recent and did not utilize a wander/elopement alarm during the seven-day lookback period. Interview with Regional Clinical Nurse (RCN)…

  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 · D2025-09-18 · 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 medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) were completed accurately following residents' significant changes in serious mental diagnosis. This affected three (#2, #9 and #13) of three residents reviewed for PASARR. The facility census was 47. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #9 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE].Diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder and anxiety disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #9 had impaired cognition. Review of Resident #9's PASARR, dated 07/21/25 and signed by admission Director (AD) #165, revealed Resident #9 was assessed to have no diagnosis of any of serious mental illness with documented antipsychotic medication use. There were no other PASARR reviews provided by the facility. Review of physician orders revealed Resident #9 received a new diagnosis of schizoaffective…

  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 · D2025-09-18 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents had care plans in place for dementia care and history of severe weight loss. This affected two (#3 and #7) of 19 residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 47. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #3 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included dementia, disorientation, and delirium. Review of the state optional Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 08/26/25, revealed Resident #3 had severely impaired cognition. Review of the physician orders and diagnosis list revealed Resident #3 had a recent diagnosis of severe dementia on 08/14/25. Review of Resident #3's care plan revealed there was no dementia care plan created for Resident #3. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 09/17/25 at 12:58 P.M. verified there was no care plan for dementia developed for Resident #3. 2. Record review for Resident #7 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-09-18 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the residents receive timely care and services during a change in condition and failed to obtain weights as physician ordered. This affected three residents (#1, #5, and #23) of four residents reviewed for changes in condition. The facility census was 47. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #5 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included history of falling, neuropathy, osteoporosis, and lack of coordination. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #5 had intact cognition and required maximum assistance with activity of daily living skills and supervision assistance with transfers. Review of the nursing notes on 05/23/25 at 5:59 A.M., Resident #5 had a witnessed fall. The resident reported pain of the right thigh. Former Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #200 documented to monitor the area. There was no documentation the physician was notified of Resident…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-09-18 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
  Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the residents received timely assessments and treatment for pressure ulcers. This affected one (#34) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 47. Findings include:Record review for Resident #34 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included diabetes mellitus and protein-calorie malnutrition. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 09/12/25, revealed Resident #34 had impaired cognition and was at risk for pressure ulcer development but did not have any pressure ulcers at the time of the assessment. Review of the care plan, dated 06/06/25, revealed Resident #34 was at risk for impaired skin integrity/pressure ulcers. Interventions included skin assessment as ordered, inspect skin daily during care, and treatments per order. Review of the admission Packet evaluation, dated 09/02/25, revealed Resident #34 had a…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-18 · 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 record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the appropriate fall interventions were in place to prevent falls and failed to ensure fall interventions were updated on the plan of care following a fall. This affected one (#34) of four residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 47. Findings include:Record review for Resident #34 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included repeated falls, diabetes mellitus, and protein-calorie malnutrition. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 09/12/25, revealed Resident #34 had impaired cognition. Review of the care plan, initiated on 03/21/25 and cancelled on 06/05/25, revealed Resident #34 was at risk for falls and potential injury. Interventions included bed stabilizers, lock bed, maintain a clear pathway, monitor for side effects of psychotropic medications, non-skid strips, provide rest periods, and have room close to the nurse's station. Dates…

  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 · D2025-09-18 · tag F0699 — isolated
  Provide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on medical record review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident was assessed and received trauma informed care accounting for the resident's experiences with spousal abuse. This affected one (Resident #42) of one resident reviewed for trauma informed care. The facility census was 47. Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #42 revealed an admission date of 07/28/25. Diagnoses included dementia. Review of the state optional Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 08/04/25, revealed Resident #42 had intact cognition. Review of Resident #42's medical record revealed no indication Resident #42 was assessed for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (a mental health condition that develops after experiencing or witnessing a traumatic event). Resident had a well-known situation of spousal abuse to the point where her husband was removed from the facility since her admission. Resident #42's medical record including a plan of care did not address if Resident #42 received trauma informed care or a PTSD assessment with a history…

  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 CONTINUING HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS — 12 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 10 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

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

This home reported $291K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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

Cost & finances

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