Cedar Haven Healthcare Center

Location & what’s nearby

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

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

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

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

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

47.0% 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 81 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 47.6% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 63 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 0.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 30% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% 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 324 beds and averages 266.5 residents a day — about 82% occupied, or roughly 58 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 3.05 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.17 is below 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 2.93 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.09 on weekdays — 5% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.17 to 0.17 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

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

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

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

• Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2026-02-02 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — pattern
  Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on facility policy review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store and label medications on six of 10 nursing units (1C, 1D, 3C, 3D, 3F, 4F) and in the central supply room, to ensure the correct and safe administration of medications for 34 of 43 sampled residents (Residents 9-42). This failure put residents at risk for medication administration errors and resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled, Specific Medication Administration Procedures, last reviewed October 1, 2025, revealed that all medications stored in carts, in medications rooms, or in central supply were to be locked at all times unless in use or under the direct observation of the medication nurse.Review of the facility policy titled, Administering Medications, last reviewed October 1, 2025, revealed that nursing staff were to check the label of all medications three times to verify that the right medication, at the right dose, was being administered at the right time with the right method to the right…

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

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Actual harm · G2024-11-21 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, review of documentation submitted by the facility, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from mental abuse, which resulted in psychosocial harm for two of 36 residents reviewed. (Residents 65, 227) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Abuse definitions, prevention and reporting, last reviewed October 2024, revealed that instances of abuse of all residents, irrespective of any mental or physical condition, cause physical harm, pain or mental anguish. This included verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and mental abuse, including abuse facilitated or enabled through the use of technology. Review of documentation entitled, Use of Social Media, in the facility's, Employee Handbook, dated December 2023, revealed that use of personal cell phones and other personal devices for other than work-related purposed while on duty was expressly prohibited. Clinical record 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 · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2026-03-31 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to employ a full-time qualified dietary services manager in the absence of a full-time registered dietitian. Findings include: In an interview conducted on March 31, 2026, at 2:45 p.m., the Administrator confirmed that there was not a full-time dietitian onsite at the facility and that the facility did not employ a qualified dietary manager in the absence of a full-time dietitian. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(3) Management.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-22 · 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident or responsible party of physician ordered changes for one of five sampled residents. (Resident 1)Findings include:Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 had diagnoses that included congestive heart failure and end stage renal disease. Review of the clinical record revealed that on December 11, 2025, the physician ordered for staff to administer Bumex (a diuretic medication) two milligrams twice a day. On December 12, 2025, the physician ordered for staff to obtain a chest x-ray, and on December 15, 2025, the physician ordered for the resident to receive double-portion protein at meals. There was no documented evidence that Resident 1 or their responsible party was notified of the change in treatment related to physician orders for Bumex, a chest x-ray, and double-portion protein with meals.In an interview on December 22, 2025, at 2:42 p.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed there was no documented evidence that the resident or the resident's responsible…

  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 · D2025-12-03 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident and the resident's representative of the bed hold and transfer, including the reasons for the move, and Ombudsman information, in writing at the time of a facility-initiated transfer from the facility for one of three sampled residents who were transferred to the hospital. (Resident 1)Findings include:Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 was transferred and admitted to the hospital on [DATE], after a change in condition. There was no documentation to support that the resident's representative was provided written information regarding a bed hold or the transfer to the hospital at the time of the facility-initiated transfer.28 Pa Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee28 Pa. Code 201.18(b)(2) Management

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-11 · 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on clinical record review, facility documentation review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify resident's physician and responsible party of change in condition for one of eight sampled residents. (Resident 1) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 had diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease and dementia. On February 1, 2025, at 1:48 p.m., a nurse noted that Resident 1 was not acting herself, she had dropped a cup off her table in the morning, had trouble grasping the cup and did not respond to when asked how she was feeling. At 5:03 p.m., the nurse noted that Resident 1 continued to seem off for the shift. At 6:34 p.m., the nurse documented that Resident 1 was unable to eat supper, was unable to chew and needed encouragement to swallow. The nurse placed an order for a speech therapy screen. On February 2, 2025, at 6:17 a.m., the nurse documented that Resident 1 continued to have weakness and was still not talking. At 11:52 a.m., Resident 1's family alerted the nurse that the resident had a change in mental…

  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 · D2024-11-21 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed to accurately reflect the current status of two of 36 sampled residents. (Residents 57 and 178) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 57 had diagnoses that included end stage renal disease. Review of Resident 57's care plan revealed she required hemodialysis. On July 3, 2024, the physician ordered for the resident to receive dialysis on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. The MDS assessment, dated October 17, 2024, did not indicate that Resident 57 received dialysis. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 178 had diagnoses that included a urinary tract infection and bladder cancer. Review of Resident 178's care plan revealed he had a nephrostomy. On November 1, 2024, the physician ordered staff to provide nephrostomy care. The MDS assessment, dated November 6, 2024, did not indicate that Resident 178 had a nephrostomy. In an interview on November 20, 2024, at 9:40 a.m., the Registered Nurse…

  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 · D2024-11-21 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan that addressed individual resident needs as identified in the comprehensive assessment for four of 36 sampled residents. (Residents 49, 62, 133, 242) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and had diagnoses that included diabetes, kidney disease, and heart failure. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Care Area Assessment (CAA) summary dated August 29, 2024, noted that the resident's psychotropic drug use and urinary incontinence was to be addressed in the care plan. Review of the medication administration records revealed the resident was receiving an antidepressant at the time of the MDS CAA summary. There was no evidence that interventions to address Resident's 49's psychotropic drug use and urinary incontinence were included in the current care plan. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 62 was admitted 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 Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-21 · 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

  Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were implemented for one of 36 sampled residents. (Resident 224) Findings include: Review of the policy entitled, Medication Administration, last reviewed October 2024, revealed that staff were to administer medications in accordance with the written orders of the physician. Vital signs were to be entered into the Medication Administration Record as indicated. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 224 had diagnoses that included hypertension (high blood pressure). On June 27, 2024, the physician ordered staff to administer a blood pressure medicine (lisinopril) once a day. Staff were not to administer the medication if the resident's systolic blood pressure (the first measurement of blood pressure when the heart beats and the pressure is at its highest) was less than 110 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg). Review of Resident 224's October and November 2024 Medication Administration Records revealed that staff administered 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-11-21 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
  Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to assess bladder incontinence and provide services to restore bladder function as much as possible for one of 36 sampled residents. (Resident 133) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Bowel and Bladder Management, last reviewed October 20, 2024, revealed that facility staff was to complete a urinary incontinence assessment upon admission and whenever there was a change in a resident's urinary tract function. Staff would review the pre-admission history, assess the resident's current bladder elimination problem, and identify causes of incontinence. If there was a change in incontinence staff would implement a toileting diary to determine a resident's voiding pattern for assistance in decision making and development of a toileting program. The type of urinary incontinence was to be identified in the care plan with specific interventions. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 133 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included…

  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 · D2023-12-01 · 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, clinical record review, observation, and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services to maintain adequate grooming and personal hygiene for two of four sampled residents who required assistance with activities of daily living. (Residents 61, 78) Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled, Nail Care, last reviewed August 14, 2023, revealed that nail care was to be provided so that residents could maintain a neat, clean appearance. Staff were to provide nail care during bathing and as needed. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 61 had diagnoses that included muscle weakness and dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident required extensive assistance from staff for personal hygiene. On November 28, 2023, at 12:44 p.m., Resident 61 was observed in bed and his fingernails were long and discolored. The resident stated that he preferred his nails to be short and had…

  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 · Dcited before2023-12-01 · 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

  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 ensure that physicians' orders or care plan interventions were implemented for four of 39 sampled residents. (Residents 1, 61, 117, 188) Findings include: Clinical record review revealed that Resident 1 had diagnoses that included anoxic brain damage, aphasia, and lack of coordination. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed that Resident 1 was cognitively impaired and required total assistance from staff for dressing. Review of the current care plan revealed Resident 1 was at risk for skin breakdown with an intervention for staff to apply derma savers (padded arm sleeves) to arms. On November 28, 2023, from 11:19 a.m. through 12:30 p.m., and November 29, 2023, at 10:22 a.m., Resident 1 was observed without derma savers on her arms. Clinical record review revealed that Resident 61 had diagnoses that included dysphagia and dementia. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed that…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

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

Fines & penalties

$61,830 in federal fines across 2 penalties.

• $10,553 — penalty dated 2026-02-02
• $51,277 — penalty dated 2024-11-21

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 6 rows in the source record cover these 4 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 80% 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 $960K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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 PA