No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Laurel Center

125 Holly Road, Hamburg, PA 19526 · For profit - Corporation · 130 certified beds · (610) 562-2284 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Flagged for abuse1 immediate-jeopardy citation$76,918 in federal fines
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (35% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • CMS has flagged it for abuse
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jan 2026
  • inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
  • the CMS record shows $76,918 in federal fines (most recent 2026-01-29)
  • its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
  • its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
  • about 21% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
  • its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 2 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
Pharmacy
306 W State St · (610) 562-2738 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Aldi0.2 mi
15 Wilderness Trl · (855) 955-2534 · Call to confirm hours
Park
211 N 2nd St · (610) 562-7821 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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

Overall quality measures 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 5 of 5

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.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased22.5%16.8%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight5.2%6.2%5.4%typical
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.7%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.5%1.5%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms21.4%10.8%6.5%worse
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury1.3%3.1%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened29.1%17.0%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication16.6%20.0%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%93.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers5.5%4.8%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control25.0%25.5%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table7.6%17.7%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.4%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine73.6%68.7%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission13.9%22.5%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit7.2%9.5%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.271.621.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.511.181.80better

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

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.

53.0% 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 106 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

53.0%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.1%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
38.5%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.33U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.12hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.15hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.06hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 38.5% 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 83 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 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 55% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% 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.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF53.0%CMS range 40.7–65.151.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.1%CMS range 7.5–16.410.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge38.5%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge34.9%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge36.1%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified98.1%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.9%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened2.9%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization5.5%CMS range 3.0–10.27.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.101.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.57
RN hours/ resident / day
0.98
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.90
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.45
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.38
RN hoursweekends
34.9%
Total nursing turnover
29.4%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 130 beds and averages 119.0 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 11 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.45 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.57 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.90 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 3.21 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.55 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.65 to 0.38 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 35% is below 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

1
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2024-09-13)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2023-10-12)

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

This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Immediate jeopardy · K2026-01-29 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — pattern
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, review of facility documentation, staff interview, and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from sexual abuse for one of six sampled residents (Resident 1) and on one of two nursing units (North Hall). This failure resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation. Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Abuse Prohibition, last reviewed September 23, 2025, revealed that sexual abuse was defined as non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a patient and included, but was not limited to, sexual harassment, sexual coercion, or sexual assault. The facility was to implement an abuse prohibition program through investigation of incidents and allegations and protection of residents during investigations. The facility was to assign a representative from social services to monitor the resident's feelings and involvement in the investigation. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 had diagnoses that included muscle weakness. Review of the Minimum Data…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Actual harm · G2026-01-29 · tag F0699 — isolated
    Provide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to assess triggers and develop and implement an individualized person-centered plan to render trauma informed care for a resident who was at risk for re-traumatization resulting in psychosocial harm for one resident. (Resident 1)Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 had diagnoses that included muscle weakness. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS, a periodic evaluation of resident care needs) dated January 5, 2026, revealed that the resident was interviewable and did not have cognitive impairment. Review of the care plan revealed that the resident was dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs), which included personal hygiene. Review of facility documentation revealed that on January 21, 2026, the resident reported that on the evening shift of January 20, 2026, nurse aide (NA) 1 washed her in a circular motion during incontinence care and stated, Do you like that? twice and flicked his tongue at her.…

    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 · F2025-05-30 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store and prepare food under sanitary conditions in the kitchen. Findings include: Observation of the kitchen on May 30, 2025, at 8:40 a.m., revealed the following: A black substance was observed on the kitchen ceiling around and on the vents. The floors in the two walk-in refrigerators and freezer were slippery to walk on, had white, black and red colored substances in the corners and garbage was observed on the floors beneath the shelves. A box of moldy cucumbers and a box of raw mushrooms on the top shelf in refrigerator #1 had spoiled and were dripping fluid onto boxes beneath. Brownies and pudding for lunch were placed in individual serving bowls on trays and stored in walk-in refrigerator #2 on a cart with no individual covering on the bowls or overall covering on the cart. The reach-in freezer had a white substance on the bottom. The floor was slippery, and dust and trash were observed under the shelves in the dry storage area. The floors around the steam table, ovens, grill, and steamer…

    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 · D2024-09-13 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    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 clinical record review and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide assistance with dining in a manner that promoted and maintained dignity for two of 25 sampled residents. (Residents 23, 46) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 23 had diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease, dysphagia (difficulty in swallowing), and anxiety. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated August 28, 2024, revealed that the resident had cognitive impairment and needed staff assistance with eating. On September 10, 2024, from 12:23 p.m. through 12:31 p.m., registered nurse (RN) 1 was observed standing while assisting Resident 23 with lunch. On September 11, 2024, from 12:12 p.m. through 12:18 p.m., nurse aide (NA) 1 was observed standing while assisting Resident 23 with lunch. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy (brain dysfunction), dysphagia, and…

    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 · D2023-10-12 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on clinical record review, observation, and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide assistance with bathing and dressing for one of 24 sampled residents. (Resident 38) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 38 had diagnoses that included abnormalities of gait and mobility (an inability to walk or move around without support), muscle weakness, and diabetes. According to the Minimum Data Set assessment, dated July 19, 2023, the resident was alert and oriented and was dependent on staff for bathing and lower body dressing. Review of the care plan revealed that Resident 38 had difficulty caring for himself due to his weakness and interventions included that staff provide assistance with activities of daily living such as washing and dressing. On October 10, 2023, at 11:05 a.m. and 2:21 p.m., and on October 11, 2023, at 10:20 a.m., the resident was observed sitting in his wheelchair with bare feet. His feet had a thick layer of dead skin covering them and blackened toenails. In an interview on October 10, 2023, at 11:05…

    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 · D2023-10-12 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the environment remained free of accident hazards on one of two nursing units. (North Hall) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications, last reviewed September 14, 2023, revealed that all medication carts were to be secured when not supervised by authorized personnel. Observation on October 11, 2023 between 8:37 a.m. and 8:42 a.m. revealed an unlocked medication cart in the North Hall. Several cognitively impaired and independently mobile residents resided on that unit. Observation on October 11, 2023 between 1:10 p.m. and 1:30 p.m., revealed two unlocked medication carts in the North Hall between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. In an interview on October 11, 2023 at 03:10 p.m the Director of Nursing confirmed that medication carts were to be locked when unattended by staff. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(5) Nursing services.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-11-17 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
    Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
    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 and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a call bell was accessible for one of 30 sampled residents. (Resident 90) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 90 had diagnoses that included multiple sclerosis, muscle weakness, and depression. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident required extensive assistance from staff for activities of daily living. On November 16, 2022, at 10:45 a.m., the resident was observed sitting in a wheel chair, and the call bell was on the bed behind the resident at the head of the bed, out of reach. There was a sign in the resident's room that reminded the resident to use the call bell to request assistance from staff. In an interview, the resident stated that she did not know where her call bell was and she knew how to use it to request assistance from staff. On November 16, 2022, at 11:43 a.m., and 12:37 p.m., the resident was again observed out of bed sitting in a…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · C2023-10-12 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespread
    Dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on observation, it was determined that the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly. Findings include: Observation of the trash compactor area on October 10, 2023, at 11:53 a.m., revealed garbage was not completely contained sanitarily within the trash compactor. Trash had accumulated along the perimeter of the building near the compactor and recycling dumptser. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(3) Management.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · B2023-10-12 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on review of resident council minutes, observation, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the food served was palatable on one of two nursing units (South Hall) and for three of 24 sampled residents. (Residents 14, 63, 81) Findings include: During the resident group interview conducted on October 11, 2023, at 10:30 a.m., six of seven residents complained that food, including pizza, was overcooked and difficult to cut and chew. A review of resident council meeting minutes dated April 11, 2023, and September 13, 2023, revealed that the residents previously complainted that food was overcooked. Observation in the kitchen on October 11, 2023, at 1:00 p.m. revealed staff was having difficulty cutting pizza into portions with a metal spatula. A test tray conducted on October 11, 2023, at 1:14 p.m., revealed the pizza was burnt and difficult to chew. In interviews on October 11, 2023, between 1:14 p.m., and 1:30 p.m., Resident 14, 63, 81 stated that the pizza was burned and unpalatable. 28 Pa. Code 201.29(j) Resident rights.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$76,918 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $76,918 — penalty dated 2026-01-29

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 GENESIS HEALTHCARE — 184 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 3 of 52.4+0.6 vs chain
Health inspection 2 of 52.3-0.3 vs chain
Staffing 2 of 52.5-0.5 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 53.5+1.5 vs chain
The other 183 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
1 of 5Alexandria Care CenterLos Angeles, CA 1 of 5Bay Crest Care CenterTorrance, CA 1 of 5Bethlehem North Skilled Nursing And RehabilitationBethlehem, PA 1 of 5Bethlehem South Skilled Nursing And RehabilitationBethlehem, PA 1 of 5Bridgeville Rehabilitation & Care CenterBridgeville, PA 1 of 5Brightwood CenterFollansbee, WV 1 of 5Carlisle Skilled Nursing And Rehabilitation CenterCarlisle, PA 1 of 5Casa De Oro CenterLas Cruces, NM 1 of 5Devonshire Care CenterHemet, CA 1 of 5Gettysburg CenterGettysburg, PA 1 of 5Glenwood CenterFlorence, AL 1 of 5Heritage CenterHuntington, WV 1 of 5Hidden Valley CenterOak Hill, WV 1 of 5Inners Creek Skilled Nursing And Rehabilitation CeDallastown, PA 1 of 5Jersey Shore Skilled Nursing And Rehabilitation CeJersey Shore, PA 1 of 5Kingston Court Skilled Nursing And RehabilitationYork, PA 1 of 5Las Palomas CenterAlbuquerque, NM 1 of 5Lebanon Center, Genesis HealthCareLebanon, NH 1 of 5Lebanon Skilled Nursing And Rehabilitation CenterLebanon, PA 1 of 5Linden Grove Health Care CenterPuyallup, WA 1 of 5Magnolia RidgeGardendale, AL 1 of 5Marmet CenterMarmet, WV 1 of 5Meridian CenterHigh Point, NC 1 of 5Merry Wood LodgeElmore, AL 1 of 5Mount Olive CenterMount Olive, NC 1 of 5Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis HealthCareFranklin, NH 1 of 5Oak Grove CenterWaterville, ME 1 of 5Oceanside Skilled Nursing And RehabilitationHampton, NH 1 of 5Orchard Park Health Care & Rehab CenterTacoma, WA 1 of 5Parkersburg CenterParkersburg, WV 1 of 5Pembroke CenterPembroke, NC 1 of 5Pine LodgeBeckley, WV 1 of 5Playa Del Rey CenterPlaya del Rey, CA 1 of 5Pocahontas CenterMarlinton, WV 1 of 5Pottstown Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation CentePottstown, PA 1 of 5Putnam CenterHurricane, WV 1 of 5Ridgewood CenterRidgewood, NJ 1 of 5Rio Rancho CenterRio Rancho, NM 1 of 5River City CenterDecatur, AL 1 of 5River Ridge CenterKennebunk, ME

Showing 40 of 183; lowest-rated first.

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

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
GENESIS PA HOLDINGS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 09/07/2007
FC-GEN OPERATIONS INVESTMENT LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 12/01/2012
GEN OPERATIONS I LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 12/01/2012
GEN OPERATIONS II LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 12/01/2012
GENESIS HEALTHCARE INCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 02/02/2015
GENESIS HEALTHCARE LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 12/01/2012
GENESIS HOLDINGS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 02/02/2015
GENESIS OPERATIONS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 02/10/2025
GHC HOLDINGS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 09/07/2007
SENIOR CARE GENESIS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 12/01/2012
SUN HEALTHCARE GROUP INCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 02/02/2015
WHITMAN, ARNOLDIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTORNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 12/01/2012
BERG, MICHAELIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 12/01/2012
KOCH, CHERYLIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/30/2022

CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 14 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

11 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.

$16.2M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+2.5%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$3.3M
Related-party expense21% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 77%Medicare 8%Other / private 15%

About 77% 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 $3.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 21% 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.

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

$355per resident / day
operating cost
$10,801per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$364per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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 PA

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Pennsylvania Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in Pennsylvania
$11,954/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$13,688/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,480/mo
Assisted living

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 395408. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-09-13, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next