Mcmahon-Tomlinson Nursing Center

Location & what’s nearby

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

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

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

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

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

50.5% 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 541 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 48.8% 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 215 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 0.43 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 73% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% 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 142 beds and averages 128.7 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 13 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 4.05 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.18 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.65 is at or above 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 3.77 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.17 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.21 to 0.12 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

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.

23 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 11 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · G2025-12-16 · 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

  Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure wound care was provided per physician orders for 1 (#31) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for wound care.The DON identified 123 residents resided in the facility.Findings: On 12/10/25 at 10:50 a.m., Resident #31 was observed in bed. The resident had staples to a right above knee amputation site.An Abuse & Neglect policy, dated 01/02/22, read in part, Neglect is the failure of the facility, its employees, or service providers to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress.A care plan for Resident #31, dated 10/02/25, showed a pressure ulcer development related to immobility and a low Braden score to the right foot, right inner foot, right ankle, and back of right leg. The care plan showed the resident's pressure ulcer would show signs of healing and remain free from infection. The care plan showed to follow facility policies/protocols for the prevention/treatment of skin breakdown.Resident #31's treatment administration…

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

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Actual harm · G2025-12-16 · 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

  Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to follow physician's orders and care plans to prevent the worsening of wounds for 1 (#31) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for wound care.The DON identified 123 residents resided in the facility.Findings: On 12/10/25 at 10:50 a.m., Resident #31 was observed in bed. The resident had staples to a right above knee amputation siteA Skin Assessment and Ongoing Skin Integrity Monitoring policy, dated 03/16/24, showed comprehensive skin assessment and ongoing monitoring were performed to identify risks, prevent skin breakdown, and ensure timely interventions in accordance with professional standards. The policy showed that documentation of skin assessments should reflect the location, size, appearance, intervention implemented and resident response. A care plan for Resident #31, dated 02/23/25, showed a pressure ulcer development related to immobility and a low Braden score to the right foot, right inner foot, right ankle, and back of right leg. The care plan showed a goal for the resident's pressure ulcer would show…

  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 · E2026-06-25 · 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

  Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed to include skin integrity for 1 (#7) of 12 sampled residents whose care plans were reviewed. The administrator identified 122 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Care Planning - Interdisciplinary Team policy, revised 2016, read in part, Our facility's Care Planning/Interdisciplinary Team is responsible for the development of an individualized comprehensive care plan for each resident. An undated care plan for Resident #7 did not show the resident being at risk for potential/actual skin impairment. An admission assessment for Resident #7, dated 05/10/26, showed the resident had a brief interview for mental status score of 4 indicating severe cognitive impairment, dependent with toileting and hygiene, always incontinent, and was at risk for developing pressure ulcers. A nursing note for Resident #7, dated 05/27/26, read in part, Received report that [Resident #7] has skin issue upon observation noted skin abrasion to rt inner ischium measures 9.5 x .5 cm with s/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 no plan of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-06-25 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  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 ensure staff implemented proper infection control practices while performing incontinent care for 2 (#10 and #11) of 2 sampled residents observed for incontinent care.The director of nursing identified 68 residents required assistance with incontinent care.Findings:1.On 06/25/26 at 1:06 p.m., CNA #1 and CNA #2 were observed to knock on Resident #10's door and ask permission to enter. CNA #1 and CNA #2 donned a gown and gloves prior to entering. CNA #1 explained they were there to provide incontinent care. CNA #1 assisted with removing the blanket and sheet from the resident. CNA #2 lowered the head of the bed and raised the bed. Each CNA assisted with pulling the resident's pajama pants below their knees. Resident #10's brief was dry. CNA #1 was observed to wipe each side of the genitalia with one wipe each and disposing of the wipe. CNA #1 used one wipe to clean the resident's indwelling catheter then disposed of the wipe. CNA #1 assisted Resident #10 to their right side. CNA #2 wiped the resident's perineal…

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

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has no plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-03-06 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
  Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of abuse was reported to the state agency within the 2-hour required timeframe for 1 (#1) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for abuse.The DON reported the facility census was 133.Listed below are abbreviations that will be used throughout this document.ADON - Assistant Director of Nursing APS - Adult Protective ServiceBIMs score - Brief Interview for Mental StatusDON - Director of Nursing A Abuse and Neglect policy, dated 09/12/25, read in part, The facility shall immediately report allegations, suspicions, or incidents of abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property, or injuries of unknown source involving residents. The admission assessment, dated 12 /05/25, showed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of congestive heart failure. The assessment showed the residence's cognition was intact with a BIMS score of 15.A skilled assessment, dated 12/05/25, showed Resident #1 had a skin…

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

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-03-06 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
  Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of abuse was investigated to make certain residents were free from abuse for 1 (#1) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for abuse.The DON reported the facility census was 133.Listed below are abbreviations that will be used throughout this document.ADON - Assistant Director of NursingAPS - Adult Protective ServiceBIMS score - Brief Interview for Mental StatusDON - Director of NursingA Abuse and Neglect policy, dated 09/12/25, read in part, The facility shall immediately report allegations, suspicions, or incidents of abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property, or injuries of unknown source involving residents. The admission assessment, dated 12 /05/25, showed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of congestive heart failure. The assessment showed the residence's cognition was intact with a BIMS score of 15.A skilled assessment, dated 12/05/25, showed Resident #1 had a skin assessment…

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

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-03-11 · tag F0641 — pattern
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the minimum data set was coded accurately for Legionella for 1 (#1) of 1 sampled discharged resident from the hospital for skilled services. The DON/IP reported one case of Legionella. Findings: Resident #1 had diagnoses which included pneumonia (unspecified), high blood pressure, and non-Alzheimer's dementia. A hospital discharge report, dated 02/17/25, showed hospital course: patient admitted for altered mental status due to pneumonia from Legionella. A Medicare-5 day MDS assessment, dated 02/21/25, did not show the diagnosis of Legionella. On 03/11/25 at 12:45 p.m., the MDS coordinator stated the resident discharged to the hospital on [DATE] and returned from the hospital on [DATE] and the Medicare-5 day care MDS assessment was completed on 02/21/25 for skilled services. They stated the skilled services completed on 03/02/25. They stated the Legionella was not incorporated into the MDS and they did not see it on the discharge report from the…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-03-11 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — pattern
  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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to update a care plan for 1 (#1) of 1 sampled resident with a new diagnosis of Legionella. The DON/IP reported one case of Legionella. Findings: A Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered policy, dated March 2022, read in part, The interdisciplinary teams reviews and updates the care plan .c. when the resident has been readmitted to the facility from a hospital stay. On 03/10/25 at 4:48 p.m., the DON/IP was asked about Resident #1's care plan related to Legionella. They stated they thought it had been resolved. They stated it was not care planned because it was already resolved.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-03-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interview, the facility failed infection prevention and control practices to ensure identification of high risk areas to include flushing of unused outlets to prevent the spread of a waterborne illness. The DON/IP reported 118 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Water Management Program to Reduce Legionella and other Waterborne Path[ogens], dated 03/05/25, policy, read in part, The program will identify risk factors, establish control measures, and ensure monitoring and corrective actions to reduce the risk of Legionella and other waterborne pathogens. System Assessment: Conduct a comprehensive assessment of the facility's water systems, including . *Identify high-risk areas (e.g [for example]., showers, sinks, water tanks) .Regularly check water temperature. Documentation *Maintain detailed records of: *Testing and monitoring results *Maintenance and cleaning schedules .Water management program .We will flush hot water heaters once per year, even though the hot water systems are equivalent continuously circulating pumps. The fire sprinkler…

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

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-04-11 · tag F0641 — pattern
  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 assessments were accurate for two (#83 and #87) of 22 sampled residents reviewed for assessments. The Administrator identified 97 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #83 had diagnosis which included weakness. An Alert Note, dated 03/22/24, documented Resident #83 was on the floor with a laceration to their left upper eyebrow and was sent to the hospital. An Admission assessment, dated 03/22/24, documented the resident had one non injury fall since admission. On 04/10/24 at 10:40 a.m., the DON stated they put falls under the health condition on the assessment. She stated a laceration was considered an injury. The DON was asked to review Resident #83's assessment and was asked what was coded for falls. She stated the resident had one no injury fall. The DON stated the resident had an injury from a fall on 03/22/24. She stated the assessment was not coded accurately. 2. Resident #87 had diagnosis which included sepsis. A Discharge Report, dated 01/15/24, documented Resident #87 discharged to 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-04-11 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — pattern
  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, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure interventions were added to the care plan after a fall for two residents (#38 and #41) of 20 sampled residents reviewed for care plan revisions. The DON identified 97 Residents resided in the facility. Findings: An Assessing Falls and Their Causes policy, revised 03/2018, read in part, .When a resident falls, the following information should be recorded in the resident's medical record .Appropriate interventions taken to prevent future falls . 1. Resident #38 had diagnoses which included type 2 diabetes mellitus, urinary incontinence, and hypertensive heart disease. Resident #38's quarterly assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident 38's cognition was mildly impaired and required partial to moderate assist with transferring. On 04/08/24 at 12:39 p.m., Resident #38 was observed to have a bruised left eye. Resident #38 stated they fell from the recliner while trying to go to the toilet. A incident report dated 04/15/23, documented…

  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 · E2024-04-11 · 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 ensure neurological checks were completed after unwitnessed falls for one (#41) of three sampled residents reviewed for falls. The Administrator identified 97 residents resided in the facility. The Resident Matrix documented 21 residents had falls. Findings: A Neurological Assessment policy, revised October 2010, read in part, .The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidance for neurological assessment .when following and unwitnessed fall .When assessing neurological status, always include frequent vital signs .perform neurological checks with the frequency as ordered or per falls protocol . An Assessing Falls and Their Causes policy, revised March 2018, read in part, .Observe for delayed complications of a fall for approximately forty-eight (48) hours after an observed or suspected fall, and will document findings in the medical record . Resident #41 had diagnoses which included altered mental status, dementia and anxiety. Resident #41's care plan, initiated on 12/27/23, documented the resident was at high risk for…

  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

$6,338 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $6,338 — penalty dated 2025-12-16

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.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 10 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.

1 organizational owner 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 $57K 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 2024. 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, FY2024). 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