The Golden Rule Home

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.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.07 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 3% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% 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 83 beds and averages 52.5 residents a day — about 63% occupied, or roughly 30 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 2.91 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.33 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.12 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 2.85 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.93 on weekdays — 3% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.32 to 0.35 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 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.

24 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 13 are one tap away and print in full.

• Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2023-09-07 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent elopement which resulted in a past noncompliance immediate jeopardy (IJ) situation effective from 05/28/23 to 05/30/23 for one (#15). Res #15 eloped from the facility on 05/24/23 and was found 300 yards away on a county road. The facility put interventions in place up through 05/28/23. The resident eloped again on 05/30/30 and was found in a nearby field. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 36 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses which included dementia and Parkinson's disease. An Elopement Risk Scale, dated 08/24/22, documented the resident was a high risk to wander. The elopement risk assessment documented the resident Wanders aimlessly within facility or off facility grouns or has a reported history of elopement. There was no care plan initiated at that time. An Elopement Risk Scale, dated 09/12/22, 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · F2026-06-12 · tag F0801 — widespread
  Employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure that the designated director of food service met the minimum required qualifications. Specifically, the facility did not employ a full-time Registered Dietitian (RD), and the facility Dietary Manager (DM) was not a certified dietary manager or certified food service manager, nor did she have an associate's degree or higher in food service management. This failed practice had the potential to affect 52 residents who received meals from the kitchen (total census: 56).Findings included: A facility Job Description & [and] Orientation Checklist, dated 07/1998, indicated the Dietary Manager (DM) position required, Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from four-year college or university; or one to two years related experience and/or training; or equivalent combination of education and experience. The job description further indicated the DM, Must hold or be capable of acquiring certificates required by the state. In an interview on 06/08/2026 at 10:14 AM, the DM stated she was not a Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) but was…

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

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2026-06-12 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — widespread
  Ensure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to follow the planned, written menu for 1 of 2 meals observed. Specifically, the facility served incorrect portion sizes for the lunch meal on 06/09/2026. This failure had the potential to affect 52 residents who received meals from the kitchen (total census: 56).Findings included: A facility policy titled Menus, revised 10/2008, indicated Menus shall a) meet the nutritional needs of residents; b) be prepared in advance; and c) be followed. A facility Menu Guide Report for the lunch meal on Tuesday 06/09/2026 indicated the planned menu included 1/3 cup (c.) garlic mashed potatoes and 1/3 c. green peas for regular diets, pureed diets, and mechanical soft diets. The menu also included a #12 (1/3 c.) dipper of pureed meatloaf and a #16 (1/4 c.) dipper of pureed bread for residents on pureed diets. During observations of the lunch meal on 06/09/2026 beginning at 12:05 PM, the Dietary Manager (DM) served the mashed potatoes for all diets and the pureed meat and pureed green peas for pureed diets…

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

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2026-06-12 · tag F0868 — widespread
  Have the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the Medical Director participated in the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee meetings as required for 13 of 13 reviewed QAPI meetings held during the timeframe from 05/30/2025 through 05/29/2026.Findings included: A facility policy titled. Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee, dated 04/2014, revealed, This facility shall establish and maintain a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee that oversees the implementation of the QAPI Program. The policy specified, 3. The following individuals will serve on the committee: d. Medical Director. Review of QAPI meeting sign-in sheet dated 05/30/2025, 06/30/2025, 07/31/2025, 08/29/2025, 09/30/2025, 10/31/2025, 11/28/2025, 12/29/2025, 01/30/2026, 02/27/2026, 03/31/2026, 04/29/2026, and 05/29/2026 revealed no documented evidence the Medical Director participated in the meetings.During an interview on 06/12/2026 at 1:27 PM, the Administrator reviewed the QAPI meeting…

  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 · E2026-06-12 · tag F0638 — pattern
  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, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were completed on a quarterly basis and submitted within the required timeframe for 17 (Residents #33, #12, #16, #17, #18, #22, #23, #3, #35, #38, #40, #43, #44, #45, #5, #54, and #8) of 18 residents reviewed for resident assessments. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Resident Assessment Instrument, revised 09/2010, specified, 1. The Assessment Coordinator is responsible for ensuring that the Interdisciplinary Assessment Team conduct timely resident assessments and reviews according to the following schedule: c. at least quarterly. The State Operations Manual Appendix PP guidance at F638 indicated, A Quarterly assessment is considered timely if:- The Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of the Quarterly MDS is within 92 days (ARD of most recent OBRA [Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] assessment + [plus] 92 days) after the ARD of the previous OBRA assessment (Quarterly, Admission, Annual, Significant Change in Status, Significant Correction to Prior…

  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 before2026-06-12 · 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to assess smoking safety prior to allowing residents to smoke unsupervised, failed to supervise residents who required supervision with smoking, and failed to ensure residents who smoked did so in accordance with the facility's smoking policy. Failed practices were identified for 3 (Residents #68, #50, and #55) of 3 residents reviewed for smoking. The failed practices had the potential to affect 14 residents who smoked, according to a list provided by the facility. Specifically, the facility failed to:- reassess smoking safety and need for supervision for Resident #68 after the resident was observed in the smoking area with oxygen in use on two occasions;- assess Resident #50 for safety while smoking; and,- provide supervision with smoking to Resident #55, whose assessment indicated they were an unsafe smoker.Findings included: An undated facility policy titled, The Golden Rule Smoking/Vaping Policy indicated, All…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-12 · tag F0554 — isolated
  Allow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was assessed for the ability to safely self-administer medication and failed to obtain a physician's order prior to allowing the resident to self-administer medication for 1 (Resident #33) of 8 sampled residents reviewed for self-administration of medications.Findings included: A facility policy titled, Administering Medications, revised 04/2010, specified, 18. Residents may self-administer their own medications only if the Attending Physician, in conjunction with the Interdisciplinary Care Planning Team, has determined that they have the decision-making capacity to do safely. A facility policy titled, Self-Administration of Medications, revised 12/2012, specified, Residents in our facility who wish to self-administer their medications may do so, if it is determined that they are capable of doing so. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. As part of their overall evaluation, the staff and practitioner will assess each resident's mental and physical abilities, 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-12 · 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

  Based on interview, record review, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a certified nursing assistant (CNA) immediately reported an allegation of suspected abuse in a manner consistent with the process outlined in the facility's abuse policy for an incident involving 1 (Resident #20) of 4 sampled residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, CNA #11 notified the off-duty Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) of suspected abuse by way of text message instead of notifying a supervisor on-duty or the facility's Abuse Coordinator directly as specified in the facility's abuse policy, which resulted in a delayed initial report submission to the state survey agency (SSA).Findings included: An undated facility policy titled, Abuse and Neglect Prohibition Program, Section 3, revealed, When abuse, neglect, mistreatment, or misappropriation of personal property of a resident is observed, or suspected, staff must immediately notify their supervisor on duty, who, in turn, should notify the abuse coordinator/administrator and director of nursing services. The policy…

  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 · D2026-06-12 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
  Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview, medical record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medication administration was accurately documented in the medical record for 1 (Resident #73) of 22 residents whose medical records were reviewed.Findings included: A facility policy titled, Charting Errors and/or Omissions, revised 12/2006, indicated, Accurate medical records shall be maintained by this facility. An admission Summary for Resident #73 revealed the facility admitted Resident #73 on 06/12/2023. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/12/2025, revealed Resident #73 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS revealed Resident #73 had diagnoses that included dementia, anxiety, and respiratory failure. The MDS indicated Resident #73 had shortness of breath with exertion and when lying flat. Resident #73's Monthly Orders Sheets for February 2025 indicated Resident #73 had a physician's order dated 06/28/2023 for Ventolin hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-12 · 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, interview, record review, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the proper storage of respiratory equipment for 1 (Resident #33) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for respiratory care, and failed to ensure staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) during the care of a resident on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBPs) for 1 (Resident #7) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for EBP. Specifically, Resident #33's nebulizer mouthpiece was not stored in a bag or closed container when not in use to prevent potential contamination, and staff performed wound and incontinence care for Resident #7 without donning the appropriate PPE.Findings included: 1. A facility policy titled, Administering Medications through a Small Volume (Handheld) Nebulizer, revised 10/2010, specified, The purpose of this procedure is to safely and aseptically administer aerosolized particles of medications into the resident's airway. The Steps in the Procedure indicated that after administering the treatment, staff should, 27. Rinse and disinfect the nebulizer…

  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 · E2024-10-03 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — pattern
  Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were offered the right to formulate an advance directive for two (#24 and #25) of three sampled residents reviewed for advance directives. The Long-Term Care Facility Application for Medicare and Medicaid form, dated 10/01/24, documented 36 residents resided in the facility. Findings: An Advance Directive policy, dated April 2008, read in part, .upon admission to our facility, the Social Services Director or designee will provide written information to the resident concerning his/her right to make decisions concerning medical care .and the right to formulate advance directives . 1. Resident #24 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #24's medical record did not contain an advanced directive or an advance directive acknowledgement form. 2. Resident #25 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #25's medical record did not contain an advanced directive or an advance directive acknowledgement form. On 10/01/24 at 1:47 p.m., 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 Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

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

Fines & penalties

$10,246 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $10,246 — penalty dated 2023-09-07

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 4 rows in the source record cover these 2 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

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 81% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $573K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. 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