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

Waynesburg Nursing And Rehab

300 Center Avenue, Waynesburg, PA 15370 · For profit - Corporation · 111 certified beds · (724) 852-2020 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (724) 852-2020 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Feb 2025Behavioral-health or dementia-care citation — no harm found (F0758)1 actual-harm citation$8,190 in federal fines
Insights

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

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Feb 2025
  • it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • the CMS record shows $8,190 in federal fines (most recent 2023-09-22)

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 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
190 Greene Plz · (724) 627-8801 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
3161 Mt Morris Rd · (724) 627-8108 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Aldi0.4 mi
210 Greene Plz · (855) 955-2534 · Call to confirm hours
Park
E Oakview Dr · (724) 998-1163 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
595 Rolling Meadows Rd

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 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 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 improved from 2 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 increased18.7%16.8%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight7.7%6.2%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.7%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.3%1.5%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.6%10.8%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury5.2%3.1%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened16.1%17.0%16.1%typical
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication21.5%20.0%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine97.9%93.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers7.8%4.8%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control21.9%25.5%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table20.0%17.7%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.4%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine96.1%68.7%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission13.2%22.5%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit9.3%9.5%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days0.401.621.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.651.181.80typical

§ 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.

47.5% 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 45 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

47.5%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.0%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
50.0%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.29U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.14hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.09hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.05hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 50.0% 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 36 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 0.29 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 44% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% 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 SNF47.5%CMS range 36.8–61.651.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.0%CMS range 5.8–14.910.7%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 discharge50.0%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 discharge66.7%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 discharge41.7%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 identified100.0%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 settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%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 worsened0.0%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 hospitalization8.5%CMS range 4.8–17.67.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.681.02Oct 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

0.46
RN hours/ resident / day
1.09
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.03
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.58
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.23
RN hoursweekends
38.3%
Total nursing turnover
16.7%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 111 beds and averages 103.5 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 8 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 3.58 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.46 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.03 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 3.36 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.67 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.55 to 0.23 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% 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

5
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-02-05)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2025-03-21)

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.

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.

17 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 6 are one tap away and print in full.

  • Actual harm · Gcited before2023-09-22 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a review of clinical records, facility documents, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate assistance to prevent falls, resulting in actual harm of a leg fracture for one of four residents reviewed (Resident R8). Findings include: Review of the facility policy Assistive Devices and Equipment dated 3/1/23 indicated the facility provides, maintains, trains, and supervises the use of assistive devices and equipment for residents. Review of the Nurse Aide (NA) Job Description dated 3/1/23, indicated the nurse aide will attend to the individual needs of the resident, which may include assistance with transferring and ambulation. Review of the clinical record indicated Resident R8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS - periodic assessment of resident's care needs) dated 8/12/23, revealed diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, a group of progressive lung disorders characterized by increasing…

    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 · F2026-02-05 · tag F0801 — widespread
    Employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on review of job descriptions, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to employ a full-time qualified dietary services manager in the absence of a full-time qualified dietitian for 12 of 12 months. (February 2025 - February 2026) Findings include:Review of facility policy Dietary Services - Staffing reviewed 1/31/25 and 1/7/26, indicated the facility employs sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skill set to carry out the functions of the Food and Nutrition Services. The facility will employ a qualified dietitian or other clinically qualified nutrition professional on a full time, part time, or consultant basis. If a qualified dietician is not employed full-time, the facility will designate a person to serve as director of food services who is a certified dietary manager, certified food service manager, has an associate's degree in food service management or two or more years of experience in the position of food and nutrition services in a nursing facility.Review of the job description for Registered Dietician (RD) indicated one of…

    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 · D2026-02-05 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
    Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
    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 review of facility policy, clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to fully investigate an incident to eliminate possible abuse or neglect for one of two residents reviewed (Resident R89).Findings include:Review of the facility policy Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation reviewed on 1/31/25 and 1/7/26, indicated an immediate investigation is warranted when suspicion, or reports of abuse, neglect, or exploitation occur. Written procedures for investigations include: identifying and interviewing all involved persons, including the alleged victim, alleged perpetrator, witnesses, and others who might have knowledge of the allegations, and providing complete and thorough documentation of the investigation.Review of the clinical record indicated Resident R89 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD caused by swelling and irritation in the airways that limit air going in and out of the lungs),…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-02-05 · 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 review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual, clinical records, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to make certain comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS- periodic assessment of care needs) assessments were accurate and fully completed for one of eight residents (Resident R21).Findings include:The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual, which gives instructions for completing Minimum Data Set Assessments dated October 2025, indicated:Section B: Hearing, Speech and Vision, Question B0700: Makes Self Understood: Ability to express ideas and wants (consider both verbal and non-verbal expression) should be coded as 0 Understood, 1 Usually understood (difficulty communicating some words or finding thoughts but is able if prompted or given time), 2 Sometimes understood (ability is limited to making concrete requests), 3 Rarely/never understood. Section C: Cognitive Patterns, Question C0100: Should Brief Interview for Mental Status Be Conducted? (BIMS) should be coded as 0 if the resident is rarely/never…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-02-05 · 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents received trauma-informed care to eliminate or mitigate triggers for residents with the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD - a mental and behavioral disorder that develops related to a terrifying event) for one of three residents reviewed (Resident R7).Findings include: Review of the facility policy, Trauma Informed Care dated 1/7/26 with a prior review date of 1/31/25, indicated that A trauma-informed approach to care delivery recognized the widespread impact and signs and symptoms of trauma in residents, and incorporates knowledge about trauma into care plan, policies, procedures and practices to avoid re-traumatization. Review of the facility policy, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered dated 1/7/26 with a prior review date of 1/31/25, indicated that A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-02-05 · tag F0849 — isolated
    Arrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
    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 review of facility documents, clinical record review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a significant change on the Minimum Data Set (MDS - core set of screening, clinical, and functional status data elements, including common definitions and coding categories, which form the foundation of a comprehensive assessment for all residents of nursing homes certified to participate in Medicare or Medicaid) for one of three residents (Resident R9).Findings include:Review of facility policy Coordination of Hospice Services reviewed 1/31/25 and 1/7/26, indicated when a resident chooses to receive hospice care and services, the facility will coordinate and provide care in cooperation with hospice.Review of the clinical record revealed Resident R9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included cancer, high blood pressure, and depression.A review of a physician's order dated 5/21/21, indicated that Resident R18 was admitted to hospice…

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

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-03-21 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — pattern
    Honor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on review of facility policy, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make accessible grievance boxes to residents on three of three locations, nursing units (A and C Wings) and across from the social service department. Findings include: A review of the facility policy Resident and Family Grievances reviewed 1/31/25, support each resident's and family member's right to voice grievances without discrimination, reprisal or fear of discrimination or reprisal. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) does not specify exact height requirements for grievance boxes in skilled nursing facilities. However, CMS mandates that grievance procedures be accessible to all residents, including those with disabilities, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In Pennsylvania, the Department of Health incorporates by reference the federal requirements outlined in 42 CFR Part 483, Subpart B, which pertain to long-term care facilities. These regulations emphasize the importance of accessibility but do not…

    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 · E2025-03-21 · tag F0623 — pattern
    Provide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on a review of facility policy, federal regulation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide transfer notices to representatives of the Office of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Division for 10 of 11 months from April 2024 through February 2025. (April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2024 and January 2025). Findings include: Review of the facility policy Transfer or Discharge Documentation dated 1/31/25, indicated that when a resident is transferred appropriate notice will be provided to the resident and/or legal representative and others as appropriate or necessary. Review of Title 42 Code of Federal Regulations §483.15(c)(3) Notice Before Transfer: indicates, before a facility transfers or discharges a resident, the facility must (i) Notify the resident and the resident's representative(s) of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing and in a language and manner they understand. The facility must send a copy of the notice to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-03-21 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — pattern
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe environment for residents in four areas of the facility (Beauty Shop, Lift Rom, Shower Room, and Boiler Rom). Findings include: During an observation on 3/17/25, at 2:25 p.m. the Beauty Shop was observed unlocked. The door was noted to have a locking mechanism. Within the Beauty Shop were observed scissors, hair dryers, curling irons, and disinfecting solution. During an observation on 3/17/25, at 2:29 p.m. the Lift Room door was noted to have a sign reading, Keep door closed at all times posted on it. The door was noted to have a locking mechanism, but the door was not closed. Within the Lift Room was noted exhaust fan panels, circuit breaker boards, charging stations for the lift batteries, and three needles used to draw blood. During an observation on 3/17/25, at 2:35 p.m. the Shower Room cabinet was observed to have a disengaged padlock on it. Within the cabinet was observed a spray bottle without a front label describing the contents, and the back label provided directions on…

    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 · E2025-03-21 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — pattern
    Implement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
    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 a review of facility policy, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain that each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs used without adequate indications for use for two of three residents. (Resident R11 and R38). Findings include: Review of the facility policy, Antipsychotic Medication Use dated 1/31/25, indicated; Residents will not receive medications that are not clinically indicated to treat a specific condition. Diagnoses alone do not warrant the use of antipsychotic medication. In addition to the above criteria, antipsychotic medications will generally only be considered if the following conditions are also met: a. The behavioral symptoms present a danger to the resident or others; AND: (1) the symptoms are identified as being due to mania or psychosis (such as auditory, visual, or other hallucinations; delusions, paranoia or grandiosity); or (2) behavioral interventions have been attempted and included in the plan of…

    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
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-11 · 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 review of facility policies, facility provided documentation, clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain a resident was free from abuse/neglect for two of five residents(Residents R1 and R2). Findings include: Review of the facility policy Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation last reviewed on 1/31/25, with a previous review date of 1/31/24, indicated that the facility will provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property. Potential employees will be screened for a history of abuse, etc. New employees will be educated on abuse, neglect, etc. The facility will have ongoing training for facility personnel as to he requirements of the facility's policies and procedures for assuring resident safety. Review of the clinical record indicated that Resident R1 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
Show the remaining 6 citations
  • Potential for harm · D2024-12-03 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — isolated
    Keep all essential equipment working safely.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on review of facility policy, observation of life equipment, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain patient care equipment in a safe operating condition to keep mechanical lift in safe operating condition for one of four mechanical lifts reviewed ). Findings include: Review of the facility policy, Safe Lifting and Movement of Residents dated 1/31/24, indicated the maintenance staff shall perform routine checks and maintenance of equipment used for lifting to ensure it remains in good working order. Review of the Manufacturer Instructions Preventive Maintenance Schedule for the Maxi Move Arjo dated 9/6/2023. Staff should visually inspect the unit prior to use and yearly inspections to be conducted by a qualified service technician. Review of the facility Preventive Maintenance documents for 9/9/24 and 10/7/24, revealed internal checks of the lift equipment is completed and maintained in a logbook. Review of the facility Preventive Maintenance documents for the lifts, revealed their contracted vendor ISS Solutions inspects the lift…

    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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-03-14 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — pattern
    Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the facility policy, clinical records, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide the opportunity to formulate an advance directive (written instructions such as a living will or durable power of attorney for health care for when the individual is incapacitated) for nine of the sixteen residents reviewed (Resident R14, R18, R48, R84, R86, R96, R98, R99, R108). Findings Include: A review of the facility policy Advanced Directives reviewed 3/1/2023 and 1/31/2024, indicated the facility will comply with the requirements related to maintaining written policies and procedures regarding advance directives, including provisions to inform and provide written information to all adult residents concerning the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment and formulate an advance directive. A review of the medical record indicated Resident R14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Parkinson ' s disease (affects movement of muscles…

    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 · E2024-02-03 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — pattern
    Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
    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 review of facility job description, resident record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for to three of four residents reviewed (Resident R1, R2, and R3). Review of the facility Licensed Practical Nurse job description, effective 9/1/23, indicated the Licensed Practice Nurse (LPN) is responsible for rendering nursing care in terms of individualized resident needs based on the scope of practical nursing. The job description further stated the LPN performs delegated nursing functions using established procedures, policies, guidelines and standards. Review of the clinical record indicated that Resident R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS, periodic assessment of resident care needs) dated 1/15/24, included diagnoses of diabetes (a metabolic disorder in which the body has high sugar levels for prolonged periods of time) and hypertension (high blood pressure in the arteries). Review of…

    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 · E2024-02-03 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — pattern
    Provide activities to meet all resident's needs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on a review of the Activity Calendars for two months (December 2023 and January 2024), and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide an ongoing program of activities to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident for five of eleven residents. Findings include: Review of Activities Calendar for December 2023, and January 2024, revealed: -No activities scheduled after 2:00 p.m. -55 of 59 days had Bible Study as an activity, daily at 10:00 a.m. -On Sundays, only three activities over the period of both months, were not religious or one-on-one visits. During an interview on 2/2/24, at 1:43 p.m. Resident R4, when asked about activities, stated, I'm bored as hell. During an interview on 2/2/24, at 2:15 p.m. Resident R5, when asked about activities, stated, Not much. Half and half. During an interview on 2/2/24, at 2:18 p.m. Resident R6, when asked about activities, stated he is Bored as shit. During an interview on 2/3/24, at 12:55 p.m. Resident R7, when asked about activities, stated…

    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 before2023-09-22 · 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 a review of clinical records, facility documents, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to make certain residents were free from emotional trauma for two of six residents (Residents R2 and R5) and neglect to provide goods and services of changing a brief to one of three residents (Resident R7). Findings include: Review of the facility Abuse Policy dated 3/1/23, indicated residents have the right to be free of abuse and neglect. The policy defined verbal abuse as any use of oral, written, or gestured language that willfully includes disparaging and derogatory terms to residents or their families, within hearing distance, to describe residents, regardless of their age, ability to comprehend, or disability. The policy defined neglect as the failure of the facility, its employees or service providers, to provide goods or services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. Review of the Nurse Aide (NA) Job…

    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 · D2023-09-22 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on review of state laws, facility policies, clinical records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement policies and procedures for covered individuals to report the suspicion and/or observation of staff to resident abuse or neglect for two of four residents reviewed (Resident R4 and R7). Findings include: Review of the Older Adult Protective Services Act of 11/6/87, amended by Act 1997-13, Chapter 7, Section 701, requires any employee or administrator of a facility who suspects abuse is mandated to report the abuse. All reports of abuse should be reported to the local area agency on aging and licensing agencies. Review of the facility's Abuse Policy dated 3/1/23, indicated employees must immediately report any suspected abuse or suspected incidents of abuse to the Director of Nursing Services. In the absence of the Director of Nursing Services such reports may be made to the Nurse Supervisor on duty. This policy further indicated that allegations of abuse and/or neglect will be reported to the State Survey Agency within 24 hours when no…

    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

“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.

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

$8,190 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $8,190 — penalty dated 2023-09-22

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

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 3 of 53.3-0.3 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 53.2-0.2 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 52.7+0.3 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 53.1+0.9 vs chain
The other 11 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.3★, per CMS)

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
WESTERN PA OPCO HOLDINGS I LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF100%since 10/29/2024
ANDREWS, HEATHERIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 09/03/2021
FINN, NICHOLASIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/03/2018
LINAM, KIMIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 09/27/2023
RASMUSSEN-JONES, HOLLYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 09/26/2016
VALLEY WEST HEALTH LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 11/15/2024
FRANCO, AHARONIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/29/2024
RAMI, ISAACIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/29/2024
KARITY, SARAHIndividualTRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 10/29/2024
BEVERLY ENTERPRISES - PENNSYLVANIA, INC.OrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 12/19/2024
BEVERLY ENTERPRISES LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 12/19/2024
BEVERLY HEALTH AND REHABILITIATION SERVICES, INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 12/19/2024
DRUMM INTERMEDIARY SUB CO LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 12/19/2024
DRUMM MERGER COOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 12/19/2024
DRUMM MERGER CO SUB LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 12/19/2024
FILLMORE STRATEGIC INVESTORS LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 12/19/2024
GEARY PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 12/19/2024
GPH WAYNESBURG LPOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 12/19/2024
ISKEB WESTERN PA LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 12/18/2024
KEYSTONE VENTURES LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 12/18/2024
PEARL SENIOR CARE, LLC.OrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 12/19/2024
SURETY COMPLIANCEOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 10/29/2024
WASHINGTON STATE INVESTMENT BOARDOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 12/19/2024
HARDING, WILLIAMIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 12/18/2024
MATULULA, KINGIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 12/18/2024
MILLER, JEANIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 11/15/2024

CMS files one row per role, so the 31 rows in the source record cover these 26 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

16 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.

$9.9M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-22.5%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.6M
Related-party expense13% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 78%Medicare 2%Other / private 19%

About 78% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.6M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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

$320per resident / day
operating cost
$9,729per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$261per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

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 395675. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-05, 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