Cottage Grove Post Acute

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.

52.3% 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 44 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 70.8% 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 24 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 0.65 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 90% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 32% 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 80 beds and averages 65.6 residents a day — about 82% occupied, or roughly 14 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 4.64 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.38 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.18 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 4.09 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.87 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.46 to 0.20 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 47% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

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

Inspection trend

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

Inspection deficiencies

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

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

26 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 14 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · G2025-06-27 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolated
  Provide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide appropriate pain management for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 33 and 39) reviewed for pain management. This failure resulted in Resident 39 not receiving her/his scheduled narcotic pain medications for three days which caused the resident to suffer from narcotic withdrawal, increased pain, and an avoidable hospitalization. This placed residents at risk for narcotic withdrawal and increased pain. Findings include: 1. Resident 39 admitted to the facility in 10/2024 with diagnoses including heart disease and kidney disease. Resident 39's 4/14/25 Quarterly MDS indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Resident 39 received scheduled pain medication and PRN pain medications. Resident 39 had frequent pain, which occasionally affected her/his sleep and ADLs. On 4/23/25 Resident 39 was admitted to hospice. On 6/23/25 at 11:25 AM, and 6/27/25 at 9:15 AM, Resident 39 stated two weeks ago, the facility ran out of her/his prescribed morphine. Resident 39 reported being informed by multiple…

  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
• Actual harm · G2022-11-18 · 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, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to prevent the development of a pressure ulcer, failed to ensure accurate and completed wound assessments, failed to care plan the pressure ulcer and failed to demonstrate the resident's clinical condition made the development of a pressure ulcer unavoidable for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#35) reviewed for pressure ulcers. This resulted in Resident 35 developing an unstageable (full thickness skin preventing view of the depth of the wound) pressure ulcer. Findings include: Resident 35 was admitted to the facility in 10/2022 with diagnoses including heart failure and malnutrition. The 10/17/22 Significant Change CAA indicated Resident 35 was at risk for pressure ulcers related to incontinence of bowel and bladder and needed assistance with ADLs. Resident 35 had a Stage 3 (full thickness skin loss) pressure ulcer. The 10/5/22 care plan indicated the resident had bladder incontinence. The resident will remain free from skin breakdown due to incontinence and brief use A Progress Note dated 10/7/22…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-06-27 · tag F0636 — pattern
  Assess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to complete timely MDS assessments for 4 of 8 sampled residents (#s 20, 21, 32, and 33) reviewed for MDS and unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for unassessed needs. Findings include: 1. Resident 20 was admitted to the facility in 1/2025 with diagnoses including reduced mobility and muscle wasting. A review of Resident 20's clinical record revealed her/his Discharge Return Not Anticipated MDS assessment was in progress and overdue by nine days on 6/24/25. On 6/26/25 at 9:59 AM, Staff 5 (MDS Coordinator) stated she was very busy for the last two to three weeks and was behind on her work and confirmed Resident 20's MDS was late. On 6/27/25 at 7:15 AM, Staff 1 (Administrator) and Staff 2 (DNS) stated the expectation for staff was to have the MDSs completed timely. 2. Resident 21 was admitted to the facility in 7/2020 with diagnoses including kidney disease and heart failure. A review of Resident 21's clinical record revealed her/his Annual MDS assessment was in progress and overdue by 13 days…

  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 · E2025-06-27 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — pattern
  Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide palatable food to 1 of 1 kitchen and 2 of 4 (#s 4 and 33) residents reviewed for food and kitchen tasks. This placed residents at risk for weight loss and reduced quality of life. Findings include: 1. A review of the 6/25/25 lunch menu revealed the facility was to provide: spaghetti with meatballs, herb green beans, and garlic bread sticks. On 6/25/25 at 11:44 AM kitchen meal service was observed. Pasta, meat sauce, garlic bread sticks, and green beans were observed to be served from the steam table. Pasta was observed to be served with tongs, appeared overcooked, and broke apart as it was served. A test tray was requested. On 6/25/25 at 12:22 PM, the test tray was sampled: -herb green beans tasted metallic and were bland. -garlic bread stick was doughy with no garlic flavor. -spaghetti noodles were mushy, soft, and overcooked. -meat sauce was flavorful but the meatball had no flavor. On 6/25/25 at 12:29 PM, Staff 9 (Dietary Manager) was asked to test the meal. Staff 9 stated 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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-06-27 · 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow infection control standards for 1 of 3 halls (West Hall) and 1 of 1 sampled resident (#28) during random observations. This placed residents at risk for exposure and contraction of infectious diseases. Findings include: 1. On 6/24/25 at 10:19 AM, Resident 44 was observed touching multiple items in the PPE cart located outside room [ROOM NUMBER] for approximately five minutes. The resident opened multiple drawers and made contact with a facemask, N95 mask, and a stethoscope. Staff 28 (CNA) was standing behind the resident during this time and did not redirect the resident or sanitize the PPE cart following the interaction. On 6/24/25 at 10:26 AM, Staff 14 (LPN) asked Staff 28 to not let Resident 44 touch items in the PPE supplies. Staff 28 then re-directed Resident 44 away from the PPE cart. Staff 14 acknowledged the incident did not align with infection control protocol. On 6/26/25 at 11:43 AM, Staff 26…

  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 · D2025-06-27 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
  Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to notify the physician of the resident's discharge to the hospital for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#39)reviewed for hospitalizations. This placed residents at risk for delayed treatment. Findings include: Resident 39 admitted to the facility in 10/2024 with diagnoses including heart disease and kidney disease. A 6/8/25 Progress Note indicated Resident 39 was sent to the hospital for nausea, diarrhea, general malaise, cold sweats, and dizziness. A review of Resident 39's clinical record revealed no indication the resident's physician was notified. On 6/25/25 at 11:44 AM, Staff 19 (Nurse Practitioner) stated she was not informed Resident 39 was sent to the hospital on 6/8/25. On 6/26/25 at 1:20 PM, Staff 2 (DNS) acknowledged Resident 39's physician was not notified when the resident was sent to the hospital.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-27 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to exercise reasonable care for the protection of the resident's property from loss or theft for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#38) reviewed for personal property. This placed residents at risk of loss or theft of property. Findings include: Resident 38 was admitted to the facility in 2/2025 with diagnoses including anxiety and reduced mobility. A 2/13/25 admission MDS revealed Resident 38 was cognitively intact. A 3/9/25 Grievance Concern Problem Identification and Follow-Up form indicated Resident 38 reported a concern with six packs of cigarettes missing. Steps taken revealed social services reviewed and discussed options for tracking cigarettes which came into the facility. Resident 38 did not want to store her/his cigarettes at the nurse's station because many of the locks can be opened with any key. There was no evidence of the cigarettes, so the facility would not refund or replace the cigarettes for Resident 38. Social services would place an order for maintenance to investigate the lock…

  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 · D2025-06-27 · tag F0628 — isolated
  Provide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure appropriate information was communicated to the receiving health care institution or provider prior to a resident being transferred to the hospital for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#39) reviewed for hospitalization. This placed the resident at risk for unassessed needs. Findings include: Resident 39 admitted to the facility in 10/2024 with diagnoses including heart disease and kidney disease. A 6/8/25 Progress Note indicated Resident 39 was sent to the hospital for nausea, diarrhea, general malaise, cold sweats, and dizziness. No evidence was found in Resident 39's clinical record to indicate the facility provided the following prior to Resident 39 being transferred to the hospital: -Contact information of the practitioner who was responsible for the care of the resident. -Advance directive information. -Medications (including when last received). On 6/27/25 at 10:19 AM, Staff 2 (DNS) stated but she was unable to provide documentation to confirm the facility provided appropriate information to 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
• Potential for harm · D2025-06-27 · tag F0637 — isolated
  Assess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to complete a Significant Change MDS assessment (SCSA) within the required 14 days after a determination of a significant change of condition of a resident for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#39) reviewed for hospitalizations. This placed residents at risk for unassessed care needs. Findings include: Resident 39 admitted to the facility in 10/2024 with diagnoses including heart disease and kidney disease. Resident 39's 4/14/25 Quarterly MDS indicated the resident was cognitively intact and was on hospice. On 6/25/25 at 10:11 AM, Staff 5 (LPN/MDS Coordinator) confirmed Resident 39 graduated from hospice on 5/30/25. Staff 5 stated she did not discuss this with Resident 39 and acknowledged she did not complete a SCSA. On 6/26/25 at 1:20 PM, Staff 2 (DNS) confirmed Resident 39 was discharged from hospice on 5/30/25 and acknowledged the facility failed to complete a SCSA for Resident 39.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-27 · tag F0655 — isolated
  Create and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to complete a baseline care plan within 48 hours of a resident's admission for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#32) reviewed for pressure ulcers. This placed residents at risk for unmet wound care needs. Findings include: Resident 32 was admitted to the facility in 12/2024 with diagnoses including Multiple Sclerosis (a chronic, autoimmune disease that affects the brain and spinal cord). A review of a 1/1/25 Skin & Wound Evaluation revealed Resident 32 was admitted with a Stage 3 pressure ulcer wound (a full-thickness skin loss, where the wound extends through the skin and into the fat tissue). A 6/24/25 review of Resident 32's care plan revealed no evidence of a baseline care plan for her/his Stage 3 pressure ulcer wound. On 6/24/25 at 2:38 PM, an observation of Resident 32's wound revealed a wound consistent with a Stage 3 pressure ulcer wound. On 6/26/25 at 12:43 PM, Staff 3 (LPN Care Manager) stated when a resident was admitted with a pressure ulcer wound, a care plan focused on current wound(s),…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-27 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  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

  2. Resident 38 was admitted to the facility in 2/2025 with a diagnoses including hypertensive heart disease with heart failure (a condition where the heart cannot pump blood effectively). Physician orders with a start date of 3/15/25 instructed staff to obtain Resident 38's weight every day shift on Saturdays for weight monitoring. A review of Resident 38's weights report revealed from 3/29/25 through 6/2/25, Resident 38's weight was documented on the report as obtained out of 12 times physician ordered. The 5/2025 TAR instructed staff to obtain weekly weights every day shift every Saturday for weight monitoring with a start date of 3/15/25. The TAR was documented as NA three times, a weight of 172 one time, and a code six one time. There was no legend for what NA was defined as. Code six was indicated as glucose. Physician orders with a start date 6/20/25 instructed staff to obtain Resident 38's weight every day shift for cardiac monitoring. The 6/2025 TAR instructed staff to obtain weekly weights every day shift every Saturday for weight monitoring. The TAR was documented as NA…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-10-16 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolated
  Protect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
  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 interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident pain medication was not misappropriated for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#3) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for increased pain. Findings include: Resident 3 was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses including a leg fracture. Review of a facility's policy Ordering and Receiving Controlled Medications dated 1/2023 revealed the facility must document and verify the quantity of controlled substances received. Review of a pharmacy medication receipt dated 9/26/24 revealed three cards of narcotic medication was delivered to the facility including medication for Resident 3. The receipt was initialed by Staff 3 (LPN). Review of the Facility Reported Incident Form (FRI) dated 9/26/24 revealed a medication card of narcotics (oxycodone 10 mg 14 tablets) for Resident 3 was missing. The form indicated the resident did not miss any doses of pain medication, the facility was searched and law enforcement was notified. Review…

  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 · Past Non-Compliance

“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

$20,670 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $20,670 — penalty dated 2025-06-27

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 PACS GROUP — 274 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 11 rows in the source record cover these 9 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.

3 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 74% 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 $730K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in OR