Solon Pointe At Emerald Ridge

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.

30.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 32 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 66.7% 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 30 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 0.39 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 67% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 41% 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 99 beds and averages 88.5 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 10 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 4.25 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.68 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.44 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 3.83 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.41 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.74 to 0.53 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 58% is well above 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.

30 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 19 are one tap away and print in full.

• Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-05-22 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, medical record review, staff interview, family interview, review of the facility resident census, review of staff schedules, review of police records, review of the facility policy on Wandering, Unsafe Residents, review of the facility's investigation, review of information on the Weather Underground computerized environmental temperatures website, review of Google Maps, and review of the facility's elopement book, the facility failed to prevent the elopement of a cognitively impaired resident (Resident #70), with a history of attempted elopement and who was assessed to be at risk for elopement from the facility. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and the potential for serious life-threatening injuries, negative health outcomes and/or death, when Resident #70 left the facility through an alarmed elevator (that did not alarm/sound), without staff knowledge, and was found by a tenant at a previous residence, 1.4 miles from the facility which was down a two-lane road with a center turn lane…

  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 · F2026-01-08 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespread
  Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, medical record review, resident and staff interview, review of a menu, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was palatable and served at acceptable temperatures. This affected directly affected (#61 and #88) of two residents reviewed for food concerns and had the potential to affect all residents receiving meals from the kitchen. The facility indicated there were three (#44, #66, and #102) residents who received nothing by mouth. The facility census was 92.Findings include:1. Review of the medical record for Resident #61 revealed an admission date of 12/11/25. Diagnoses included but were not limited to hypokalemia, ulcerative colitis, and gastro-esophageal reflux disease.Review of the 12/18/25 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #61 revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated the resident had intact cognition. Resident #61 was noted to require set up for meals and receive a regular diet.Review of the physician orders for Resident #61 revealed an order dated 12/13/25 for a regular…

  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 · E2026-01-08 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — pattern
  Ensure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, review of facility menus, review of facility production sheets, review of food substitution logs, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to ensure all menu items were provided for all residents, specifically residents with an order for a pureed diet. This directly affected one (#41) of four residents reviewed for food and nutrition with potential to affect seven (#9, #16, #55, #59, #68, #81, and #100) additional residents who received a pureed diet. The facility census was 92.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #41 revealed an admission date of 09/05/24. Diagnoses included but were not limited to polyneuropathy, hyperlipidemia, noninfective gastroenteritis and colitis, and sarcoidosis. Review of the 11/14/25 significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #41 revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of four which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Review of activities of daily living (ADLs) for Resident #41 revealed she required…

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

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-08 · 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 resident record review, resident interview, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents advance directives were accurately documented in the resident medical record. This affected one (#88) of one resident reviewed for advanced directives. The facility census was 92. Findings include:Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) for Resident #88 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral palsy, dysarthria and anarthria, and ataxia. Review of the EMR revealed Resident #88 was a full code status (cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) would be initiated in an event of cardiac or respiratory arrest). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #88 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicting the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the MDS assessment revealed Resident #88 required some assistance for activities of daily living (ADLs).Review of the care plan…

  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 · D2026-01-08 · tag F0645 — isolated
  PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
  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 a resident's Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) accurately reflected current mental health conditions. This affected one (#8) of three residents reviewed for PASRR. The facility census was 92.Findings include:Review of the medical record revealed Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and major depressive disorder. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #8 was cognitively intact and required assistance of one staff person for completing her activities of daily living.Review of the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) document dated 01/19/24, under section E titled, Indications of Serious Mental Illness, revealed the facility did not provide/document indications that the resident had a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress…

  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 · Dcited before2026-01-08 · 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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan to address a resident's healthcare needs. This affected one (#8) of one residents reviewed for post-traumatic stress disorder. The facility census was 92.Findings include:Review of the medical record revealed Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and major depressive disorder. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #8 was cognitively intact and required assistance of one staff person for completing her activities of daily living.Review of the current comprehensive care plan for Resident #8 revealed no problems, goals, or interventions related to Resident #8's PTSD.Social Service Director (SSD) #701 verified in an interview on 01/08/26 at 8:45 A.M. that Resident #8's care plan did not address Resident #8's…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-01-08 · 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 observation, medical record review, hospital document review, review of fall investigations, resident representative interview, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident care plans were revised to reflect residents' current medical and psychological status and resident representatives were provided the option to chose care and treatment interventions during care plan development. This affected two (#22 and #82) of twenty-two sampled residents. The facility census was 92.Findings include:1. Review of Resident #22's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type; dementia with psychotic disturbance; and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #22 was cognitively intact, required hands-on assistance for activities of daily living, and had no documented behaviors. Review of Resident #22's care…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-01-08 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
  Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, review of shower sheets and schedules, resident interview, resident representative interview, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with appropriate care and assistance with their activities of daily living. This affected three (#10, #25, and #73) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The census was 92. Findings include:1. Review of the medical record for Resident #73 revealed an admission date of 07/11/25. Diagnoses included Parkinsonism, dementia, and muscle weakness. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact. She required supervision/touching assistance for eating. Review of the January 2026 physician orders revealed orders for a divided plate, weight utensils, and a sippy cup with lid and straw. Review of the care plan initiated on 07/23/25 revealed Resident #73 had a goal to maintain activities of daily living (ADLs).…

  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 before2026-01-08 · 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, hospital document review, review of fall investigations, resident representative interview, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate fall interventions were implemented and consistently in place to prevent falls. This affected one (#82) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 92.Findings include:Review of the medical record for Resident #82 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included anoxic brain damage, intracranial injury, post traumatic seizures, and spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00, that indicated Resident #82 had severe cognition impairment. Review of the MDS assessment revealed Resident #82 was dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs). Review of the care plan dated 05/19/25 revealed Resident #82 had increased risk for falls…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-01-08 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolated
  Ensure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
  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, medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered to prevent a medication error rate of less than five (5) percent (%). A total of two medication errors were observed out of 29 opportunities for a medication error rate of 6.9%. This affected one (#57) of four residents observed for medication administration. The census was 92. Findings include:Review of Resident #57's medical record revealed he was admitted [DATE] and had diagnoses including unspecified dementia, paranoid schizophrenia, and chronic gout. Review of Resident #57's physician orders revealed the resident was ordered fish oil 1200 milligrams (mg) once daily on 10/20/23, and was ordered vitamin D3 on 06/07/23 with instructions to give one tablet daily but had no dosage specified. Observation of a medication administration for Resident #57 by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #840 on 01/07/25 at 9:02 A.M. revealed she administered one 1000 unit pill of…

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

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-05-22 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
  Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's call light was accessible to request assistance as needed. This affected one (#28) of four resident's observed for accommodation of needs. The facility census was 88. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #28 revealed an admission date of 05/15/23. Diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure, hemiplegia affecting left nondominant side, morbid severe obesity, major depressive disorder, anxiety, tracheostomy, and dependence on respirator. Review of the Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #28 was cognitively intact. Resident #28 had no impairment of the upper or lower extremities. Resident #28 used no mobility devices. Resident #28 required assistants with activities of daily living. Review of the care plan for Resident #28 dated 02/15/24 revealed Resident #28 was at risk for falls related to deconditioning, confusion, gait/balance problems, and incontinence. Interventions…

  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

“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

$10,845 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $10,845 — penalty dated 2024-05-16

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

Part of a chain

This home belongs to CCH HEALTHCARE — 33 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

2 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 78% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.0M 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