Arbor Village

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.

47.1% 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 39 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 51.6% 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 31 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 0.17 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 16% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 68.7 residents a day — about 48% occupied, or roughly 73 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 3.38 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.25 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.13 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 2.91 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.58 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.27 to 0.19 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 63% 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 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.

21 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 10 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · Gcited before2025-08-10 · 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 provide an environment free of accident hazards for 1 (# 69) of 20 sampled residents reviewed for accident hazards. The administrator identified 84 residents resided in the facility. Findings:A quarterly assessment, dated 02/24/25 ,showed Resident #69 had diagnoses which included anxiety and vascular dementia, and a BIMs score of 5 which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired for daily decision making. An elopement evaluation, dated, 03/04/25, showed a score of 9 which put Resident #2 at risk for elopement. The evaluation showed Resident #2 had a history of walking around the facility but did not exhibit exit seeking behaviors. A progress note, dated 04/24/25 at 7:00 p.m., showed dietary staff notified nursing staff Resident #2 had fallen outdoors. The progress note showed Resident #2 was transported to a hospital for evaluation. A facility incident report to the Oklahoma Stated Department of Health, dated 04/24/25, showed Resident #2 exited the facility through a propped open door and fell on the uneven…

  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 · Ecited before2026-06-11 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — pattern
  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

  The 2567 had been amended based on a determination resulting from an Informal Dispute Resolution (IDR). Existence of Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) has been removed. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to:a. ensure supervision for residents who smoke and to secure smoking materials to prevent accident hazards for 1 (#5) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for smoking; andb. prevent elopement for 1 (#7) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for elopement.The DON identified 15 residents at risk for elopement resided in the facility.Findings:1. On 06/08/26 at 8:45 a.m., Res #5 was observed to have three packs of cigarettes and a lighter on their overbed table. On 06/09/26 at 9:54 a.m., Res #5 was observed to have cigarettes and a lighter on their overbed table.An undated Resident Smoking policy showed residents would be assessed to determine if they were safe to smoke either supervised or unsupervised. The policy showed smoking materials of residents requiring supervision would be secured by staff.A baseline care plan, dated 03/05/26, showed Res #5 received oxygen…

  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 plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-11 · 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

  Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for 1 (#5) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for care plans.The DON identified 65 residents resided in the facility.Findings:An undated Comprehensive Care Plans policy, read in part, It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing and mental and psychosocial needs and ALL services that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment and meet professional standards of quality.An admission record, dated 03/05/26, showed Res #5 had diagnoses which included depression and atrial fibrillation.An admission assessment, dated 03/18/26, showed Res #5 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact for daily decision making. The assessment showed Res #5 was always incontinent, was at risk for developing pressure ulcers, and received an opioid pain medication.Res #5'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 plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-11 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to assess, monitor, and intervene to prevent worsening pressure ulcers for 1 (#2) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.The DON identified 7 residents with pressure ulcers resided in the facility. Findings:An undated Pressure Injury Prevention and Management policy, read in part, Licensed nurses will conduct a full body assessment on all residents upon admission/readmission, weekly, and after any newly identified pressure injury. Findings will be documented in the medical record. Findings should include type of wound, wound measurements (measured upon discovery and at least weekly thereafter), other wound characteristics (color, exudate, odor, pain, tissue type in wound bed), and treatment and interventions implemented.An admission note, dated 01/19/26, showed Res #2 had multiple wounds upon admission including a wound to the right buttock, wound to the left gluteal fold, a wound to the left great toe, deep tissue injury to right heel, scab on the right earlobe, wound to upper lip, and a small pea-sized wound to…

  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 plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-11 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
  Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
  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 medications were administered as ordered for 1 (#5) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for medications.The DON identified 65 residents resided in the facility.Findings:An admission record, dated 03/05/26, showed Res #5 had diagnoses which included epilepsy and heart failure.A physician's order, dated 03/05/26, showed Res #5 was to receive 750 mg of levetiracetam (an anticonvulsant medication) twice a day by mouth for epilepsy. The order was discontinued on 03/07/26.A nurse note, dated 03/07/26 at 2:04 p.m., showed Res #5 had seizure activity at 9:50 a.m., 11:55 a.m., and 12:21 p.m. The note showed hospice arrived at 2:00 p.m. to assess the resident.A physician's order, dated 03/07/26, showed Res #5 was to receive 1000 mg of levetiracetam twice a day by mouth for epilepsy.A nurse note, dated 03/08/26 at 4:44 p.m., showed Res #5 was had seizure activity throughout the day. The note showed hospice had been notified earlier in the morning the increased dose of levetiracetam was not available in the facility. The note…

  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 plan of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure infection control was maintained for residents with indwelling urinary catheters for 1 (#8) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for infection control.The DON identified 5 residents with indwelling urinary catheters.Findings:On 06/04/26 at 2:25 p.m., Res #8 was observed in the lobby area of the facility seated in their wheelchair with their catheter drainage bag attached to the back of their wheelchair. The bottom of Res #8's catheter drainage bag and part of the drainage tubing was observed to be resting on the floor.On 06/04/26 at 2:57 p.m., Res #8 was observed in the outside smoking area. The bottom of the catheter drainage bag and part of the drainage tubing was observed to be resting on the floor.An undated facility policy titled Indwelling Catheter Use and Removal, read in part, If an indwelling catheter is in use, the facility will provide appropriate care for the catheter in accordance to current professional standards that include . Insertion, ongoing care and catheter removal protocols that adhere…

  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 plan of correction
• Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-08-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
  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 to:a. review infection prevention control policies and procedures at least annually,b. assess locations Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens can grow and spread,c. implement measures to prevent the growth of waterborne pathogens, andd. have monitoring in place to evaluate effectiveness of water pathogen program.The administrator reported 64 residents resided in the facility. FindingsA facility policy titled Legionella Surveillance, implemented on 08/22/22, did not include a plan for assessing, evaluating and monitoring the measures to prevent the growth of waterborne pathogens.On 08/07/25 at 2:20 p.m., the infection prevention coordinator was asked about annual review of policies. They stated they were not current and had not been reviewed in a few years.On 08/10/25 at 10:05 a.m., the administrator was asked about the annual review of infection control policies. They stated they could not find any documentation of any reviews.On 08/07/25 at 2:20 p.m., the infection prevention coordinator was asked about the…

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

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-08-10 · tag F0848 — pattern
  Provide a neutral and fair arbitration process and agree to arbitrator and venue.
  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 the arbitration agreement provided the selection of a neutral arbitrator for 3 (#2, 11, and #71) of 3 sampled residents whose arbitration agreements were reviewed.The administrator identified 63 residents had signed binding arbitration agreements. Findings:An undated Policy and Procedure for Arbitration, read in part, Arbitration: A binding process where a neutral third party [arbitrator] hears and resolves disputes outside of court.Arbitrator Selection: Arbitration will be conducted by a neutral, qualified arbitrator agreed upon by both parties.1. An Arbitration Agreement, signed by Resident #2's representative, on 05/09/24, did not show a neutral arbitrator would be utilized.An admission assessment, dated 05/17/25, showed Resident #2 had BIMS score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact for daily decision making.2. An Arbitration Agreement, signed by Resident #11 on 07/29/24, did not show a neutral arbitrator would be utilized.A quarterly assessment, dated 04/10/25, showed Resident #11 had a…

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

  Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-08-10 · tag F0638 — isolated
  Assure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
  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 quarterly assessments were completed within 14 days of the assessment reference date for 3 (#6, 27, and #28) of 20 sampled residents whose assessments were reviewed. The administrator identified 64 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. A quarterly assessment, dated 06/17/25, showed a BIMS assessment had not been conducted for Resident #6 and the assessment had been completed on 07/12/25. On 08/10/25 at 10:12 a.m., the MDS coordinator stated they were unable to complete the BIMS assessment because they had completed the quarterly assessment late and they were outside of the timeframe to obtain a BIMS score. They stated the quartely MDS was completed late for Resident #6 because the previous MDS coordinator had resigned, they did not have access to complete MDS assessments for a while, and they had gotten behind. 2. A quarterly/discharge return not anticipated assessment, dated 07/01/25, showed Resident #27 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact for daily decision making,…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-08-10 · tag F0640 — isolated
  Encode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of 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 submitted/transmitted within 14 days of completion for 2 (#27 and #28) of 20 sampled residents whose assessments were reviewed.The administrator identified 64 residents resided in the facility.Findings: 1. A quarterly/discharge return not anticipated assessment, dated 07/01/25, showed Resident #27 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact for daily decision making, and the assessment had been completed late on 07/20/25. An MDS 3.0 NH Final Validation Report, dated 08/05/25, showed the quarterly/discharge return not anticipated assessment for Resident #27, dated 07/01/25, had been submitted late. On 08/10/25 at 10:15 a.m., the MDS coordinator stated the quarterly/discharge return not anticipated had been submitted/transmitted on 08/05/25. The MDS coordinator stated they had not known how to transmit/submit assessments so the regional office had been transmitting them. 2. A quarterly assessment, dated 06/29/25, showed Resident #28 had a BIMS score of 15, which…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-08-10 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure assessments were accurate for 1 (#2) of 20 sampled residents whose assessments were reviewed. The administrator identified 64 residents resided in the facility. Findings: An admission assessment, dated 05/17/25, showed Resident #2 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact for daily decision making, had a diagnosis of hemiplegia, and was taking an anticoagulant during the seven-day look back period. A medication administration record, dated 05/01/25 through 05/31/25, did not show Resident #2 had received an anticoagulant medication during the look back period. On 08/10/25 at 10:05 a.m., the MDS coordinator reviewed the admission assessment, physician orders, and the medication administration record and stated the assessment had been coded in error regarding the anticoagulant medication. They stated Resident #2 had not been ordered or received an anticoagulant medication during the look back period for the assessment.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.

• Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-09-05 for 7 days

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 SKYBLUE HEALTHCARE — 12 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

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.

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