Southern Pointe Living Center

Location & what’s nearby

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

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

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

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

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

44.7% 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 32 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.30 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 95 beds and averages 53.6 residents a day — about 56% occupied, or roughly 41 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 1.87 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.24 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.19 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.13 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 1.76 on weekdays — about the same on weekends as weekdays. RN hours go from 0.23 to 0.27 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 72% is well above the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.

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

Inspection trend

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

Inspection deficiencies

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

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

25 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 13 are one tap away and print in full.

• Immediate jeopardy · J2025-04-08 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY On 04/07/25, an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to protect a resident's right to be free from neglect. Resident #3 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus type II and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side. There was no documentation upon admission of Resident #3 having any skin issues. Resident #3's quarterly assessment, dated 01/13/25, showed the resident required substantial/maximal assistance with all ADL's and had a Braden score of 16, placing them at increased risk of pressure ulcer/pressure injury development. The assessment showed there were no skin concerns. There were no documented skin assessments between 01/26/25 and 02/10/25. A nursing note, dated 02/10/25 at 6:55 p.m., showed Resident #3 was transferred to hospital for altered mental status and slurred speech. There was no documentation of concerns related to the buttock or coccyx. A hospital…

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

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Immediate jeopardy · J2025-04-08 · 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 On 04/07/25, an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to ensure a resident at risk for pressure ulcers was assessed and monitored to prevent pressure ulcers. Resident #3 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus type II and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side. An admission assessment, dated 07/13/24, showed no skin concerns. Resident #3's quarterly assessment, dated 01/13/25, showed the resident required substantial/maximal assistance with all ADL's and had a Braden score of 16, placing them at increased risk of pressure ulcer/pressure injury development. The assessment showed no skin concerns. There were no documented skin assessments between 01/26/25 and 02/10/25. A nursing note, dated 02/10/25 at 6:55 p.m., showed Resident #3 was transferred to hospital for altered mental status and slurred speech. There was no documentation of concerns related to the buttock or…

  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 · E2025-09-18 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — pattern
  Have a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure RN coverage for 8 consecutive hours a day for 2 of 3 months of time details for registered nurses reviewed.The administrator identified 42 residents resided in the facility.Findings:A Time Detail Report, dated 07/01/25 through 07/31/25, showed no RN hours for Friday, 07/11/25; Monday, 07/14/25; Monday, 07/28/25; and Tuesday, 07/29/25. A Time Detail Report, dated 08/01/25 through 08/31/25, showed no RN hours for Thursday, 08/07/25; Tuesday, 08/26/25; Friday, 08/29/25; and Sunday, 08/31/25.No other RN documentation was provided at the time of the survey.On 09/18/25 at 12:15 p.m., the business office manager stated the DON's last day of employment was Thursday, 06/20/25.On 09/18/25 at 2:13 p.m., the regional director of operations stated the RN called in Sunday, 08/31/25.

  Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-04-04 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
  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 observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan related to nutrition and elopement for two (#22 and #50) of 12 residents reviewed for care plans. The DON identified 42 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Res #22 had diagnoses which included muscle wasting and atrophy, hypokalemia, and vitamin deficiency. An admission assessment dated [DATE], documented the resident was intact with cognition and had frequent pain. The assessment documented the resident weight was 241 pounds. The CAA area of the MDS triggered to care plan nutritional status. A quarterly assessment, dated 03/11/24 documented the resident was intact with cognition and documented the resident's weight was 205 pounds and was not on a physician prescribed weight loss program. On 04/01/24 at 12:53 p.m., the resident was observed in the recliner in their room. The noon meal had been served and he was not eating it. The resident stated they eat breakfast then they start having…

  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 · Ecited before2024-04-04 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — pattern
  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

  Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow physician orders for three (#1,#22, and #34) of 12 resident reviewed for following physician orders. The DON identified 42 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Res #22 had diagnoses which included muscle wasting and atrophy, hypokalemia, and vitamin deficiency. A quarterly assessment, dated 03/11/24 documented the resident was intact with cognition. The assessment documented the resident's weight was 205 pounds and was not on a physician prescribed weight loss program. Physician orders, dated 12/09/24, documented to document the amount consumed by the resident for breakfast, lunch, dinner and the amount of fluids consumed with the meals. The meal % documentation was not completed for all meals daily. The documentation was observed for the month of March and to April 4th. On 03/07/23, 03/09/24, 03/14/24, and 03/23/24 there was no meal % documented. On 04/04/24 at 1:30 p.m., The DON stated the meal % were just not being charted as ordered. 2. Res #1 had diagnoses which included diabetes A physician'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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2024-04-04 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure menus were followed for one meal service for the puree meals. The DM identified three residents who eat a puree diet. Findings: On 04/03/24 11:18 a.m., the DM started the puree with cherry cobbler. At 11:27 a.m. the cabbage was pureed, at 12:04 pm., the sausage was pureed, and at 12:11 p.m. the potatoes were pureed. Corn bread for the puree meal was not observed. The menu for 04/03/24 was Kielbasa, fried potatoes, cabbage, cornbread, and fruit cobbler. The puree menu documented the residents were to receive a #10 scoop of cornbread. On 04/03/24 at 1:04 p.m., the DM stated the residents who have the pureed meals should have also received cornbread with their meal. The DM stated they were nervous and missed the corn bread.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-04-04 · tag F0563 — failed to protect the right to visitors — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to receive visitors of his or her choosing, at the time of his or her choosing.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident's rights to allow/receive visitors of the resident's choice for one (#33) of one sampled resident reviewed for visitation. The DON identified 42 resident who resided in the facility. Findings: An undated facility policy titled VISITING REGULATIONS, read in part, .Establish a measurable goal for active participation and social interaction with visitors of the resident's choice . Res #33 had diagnoses which included chronic pain syndrome, chronic kidney disease, and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. A five day assessment, dated 03/16/24, documented the resident was intact with cognition and required supervision or touch assistance with most ADLs. On 04/01/24 at 10:22 a.m., the resident councel president stated the can have visitors of choice. They stated Res #33 had talked to them about not being allowed visitor of choice. The resident councel president stated they had talked to the administrator and the ombudsman had been to the facility and now Res #33 can have the visitor of their choice. 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 Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-04 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident assessments were accurate for two (#4 and #7) of 12 sampled residents whose resident assessments were reviewed. The DON identified 42 residents who reside in the facility. Findings: 1. Res #7 had diagnosis which included COPD, Bipolar disorder, Schizoaffective disorder, and dementia. A significant change assessment, dated 03/06/24, documented the resident was severly impaired with cognition and required partial to moderate assistance with most ADLs. The assessment documented a GDR had not been contraindicated. A MRR request, dated 09/27/23, documented the following medications are due for consideration of a GDR for clonazepam, Vraylar, and Risperdal. On 10/02/23 the physician did not wish to reduce the medication. The physician documented the resident was on hospice. On 04/03/24 at 2:12 p.m., the corporate nurse consultant #1 stated the contraindication should have been dated 09/27/23 on the MDS. 2. Res #4 had diagnoses which included osteoporsis. Progress notes dated 02/06/24 at 1:09 a.m., through 02/07/24…

  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 · D2024-04-04 · tag F0644 — isolated
  Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify OHCA of a new diagnoses of serious mental illness for one (#7) of one sampled resident whose PASRR I was reviewed. The DON identified 42 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: Res #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses which included Schizoaffective disorder and major depressive disorder. On 11/07/22 A PASRR I was completed. The PASRR I did not document the resident had a serious mental illness. On 12/30/22, the resident received a new diagnosis of Bipolar disorder, unspecified. OHCA was not contacted regarding the new diagnoses. On 04/04/24 at 8:45 a.m., corporate nurse #1 confirmed OHCA was not called when the resident got a new diagnoses in December of 22.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-04-04 · tag F0645 — isolated
  PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete a PASRR I for a newly admitted resident who remained in the facility for one (#7) of one sampled resident whose PASRR I was reviewed. The DON identified 42 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: Res #7 had was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had the diagnoses of Schizoaffective disorder. A PASRR I was not located as completed on admission. On 02/14/22 the resident received the diagnosis of major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate. On 11/07/22 A PASRR I was completed. The PASRR I did not document the resident had a serious mental illness. On 12/30/22, the resident received a new diagnosis of Bipolar disorder, unspecified. On 04/04/24 at 8:47 a.m., corporate nurse #1 stated the PASRR I was completed late they were not able to fine a PASRR I on admission.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-04 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident at risk for elopement was properly assessed and monitored to prevent elopement from the facility for one (#50) of two residents reviewed for elopement risk. Findings: The Elopement policy, undated, read in part, .Upon admission, quarterly and with significant change in status, the nurse will completed an Elopement Screen. Those residents will have an Elopement Risk Alert completed . Res #50 had diagnoses which included dementia and mood disorder. An LTC - admission Assessment/Observation Documentation, dated 11/01/23, documented Res #50 was an elopement risk. A progress note, dated 11/28/23 at 2:35 a.m., documented the resident eloped from the facility through a torn window screen. A progress note, dated 11/28/23 at 1:57 p.m., documented the resident was located at 5:45 a.m. and would be transferred to a geri-psych facility. A progress note, dated 12/18/23, documented the resident returned to the facility from geri-psych. Res #50's comprehensive care plan did not include an elopement risk care plan at the…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-04-04 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolated
  Provide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to conduct pain assessments for two (#10 and #24) of two resident reviewed for pain. The DON identified 42 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: The Pain - Clinical Protocol policy, last revised October 2010, read in part, .2. The nursing staff will assess each individual for pain upon admission to the facility, at the quarterly review, whenever there is a significant change in condition, and when there is an onset of new or worsening of existing pain. 3. The staff will staff and physician will identify the nature (characteristics such as location, intensity, frequency, pattern, etc.) and severity of pain. 1. Res #10 had diagnoses which included pain. An annual assessment, dated 01/17/24, documented the resident was moderately impaired with cognition and was independent with most ADLs. The assessment documented the resident had occasionaly pain that affected sleep and interfered with activities. The assessment documented the resident received PRN pain medication. The resident did not have any pain…

  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

$38,445 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $38,445 — penalty dated 2025-04-08

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 BGM ESTATE — 15 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

5 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.

This home reported $326K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

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 OK