Falcon Ridge Rehabilitation

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.

47.2% 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 40 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 60.9% 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 23 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 0.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 38% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% 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 140 beds and averages 98.3 residents a day — about 70% occupied, or roughly 42 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 2.99 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.21 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.91 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 2.72 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.10 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.22 to 0.19 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 41% 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.

29 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 18 are one tap away and print in full.

• Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2023-11-01 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents had the right to be free from abuse for one (Resident #2) out of three residents reviewed for abuse, in that: The facility failed to prevent a physical altercation between Resident #1 and Resident #2 that led to Resident #2 sustaining an abrasion to his left ear, redness to the back of the left side of his head and neck, causing him to have a headache and experience dizziness. This failure resulted in an identification of an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 10/31/23 at 3:00 PM. While the IJ was removed on 11/01/23 at 2:30 PM, the facility remained at a level of actual harm at a scope of isolated that is not immediate jeopardy due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. This failure placed residents at risk pain, injury, hospitalization, intimidation, and a decreased quality of life. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's undated face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old male who was…

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

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-16 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for one (Resident #1) of three resident reviewed for accidents. CNA A failed to get assistance while providing care for Resident #1 who was a 2 -person assist. CNA A and the MDS Nurse failed to lock Resident #1's bed and Geri chair (a specialized, highly padded recliner on wheels) while transferring Resident #1 via mechanical lift from the bed to the Geri chair. This failure could place residents at risk for falls, injury and hospitalization.Findings included:Review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 06/16/2026, reflected a [AGE] year-old male, admitted [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Quadriplegia (the partial or total paralysis of all four limbs (both arms and both legs) and the torso), Unspecified intracranial injury with loss 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-10-23 · 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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices during a mechanical lift transfer for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was transferred per mechanical lift by two people. CNA A transferred Resident #1 from his bed to his motorized wheelchair without the assistance of another person. This failure could place the residents at risk of not receiving the care and services to meet their needs and puts them at risk for injury. Findings included: Review of an undated face sheet for Resident #1 reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses included cerebral palsy (a neurological condition that affects movement and posture, caused by abnormal brain development or damage to the brain, often occurring before or during birth.), hemiplegia, affecting the right dominant side (Hemiplegia is a symptom 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
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-06-23 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — pattern
  Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to give Resident #1 his Biofreeze Gel 4% scheduled medication during the standard time frame for 13 days and did not get his Biofreeze Gel at all on 06/19/2025. These failures placed residents at risk of pain, and a decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 06/23/2025, reflected a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included: pain in joint, muscle wasting, and type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy (nerve damage due to diabetes). Record review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 04/29/2025, reflected the resident had a BIMS score of 15, which…

  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 · D2025-03-20 · 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 interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, which include measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for one of six residents (Resident #36) reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #36's care plan addressed that the resident received hospice service. This deficient practice could result in a loss of quality of life due to residents receiving improper care. Findings include: Record review of Resident #36's face sheet, dated 3/19/2025, revealed an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #36 had diagnoses which included COPD (a lung disease which makes breathing difficult), chronic congestive heart failure (the heart is not able to pump enough blood to meet the body's needs), anxiety,…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-20 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolated
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food safety in the facility's only kitchen. The facility failed to ensure food in the dry storage area was kept off the floor. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk for accumulation of insects and/or rodents causing food-borne illness. Findings included: In an observation on 3-18-2025, at 8:45 AM, in the facility's dry food storage area, one loaf of bagged bread was observed to be on the floor. In an interview with the Dietary Manager on 3-20-2025 at 11:00 AM, it was revealed the Dietary Manager had worked at the facility for one month. The Dietary Manager said that it is all the kitchen staff's responsibility to ensure food in the dry storage area is kept off the floor to prevent cross contamination to the residents. The Dietary Manger stated his expectation was for food to be kept 6 inches off the floor and if food falls on the floor for it to be thrown away in the trash. In an interview with the…

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

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-12-18 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
  Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of needs and preferences for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accommodation of needs. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 could access his call button on 12/18/24. This failure placed residents at risk of not being able to call for help if they need it. Findings included: Review of the undated face sheet for Resident #1 reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included history of traumatic brain injury, muscle wasting and atrophy (loss of muscle mass and tissue), cognitive communication deficit, and contracture of muscle in both upper arms. Review of the annual MDS assessment for Resident #1 dated 12/09/24 reflected a BIMS score of 14, indicating intact cognitions. It reflected he was completely dependent on staff for transfers from bed to chair. Review of the care plan for…

  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 · D2024-12-18 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
  Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received care, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent pressure ulcers for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for prevention of pressure ulcer. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 received weekly skin assessments in accordance with his care plan. This failure placed residents at risk of pressure ulcers going untreated. Findings: Review of the undated face sheet for Resident #2 reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy (a form of cerebral palsy that affects both arms and legs and often the torso and face), unspecified contracture of muscle, and muscle wasting and atrophy (loss of muscle mass and strength). Review of the admission MDS assessment for Resident #2 dated 10/07/24 reflected a BIMS score of 12, indicating moderately impaired cognition. It reflected he was frequently incontinent of bladder. There were no skin…

  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 · Ecited before2024-11-15 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — pattern
  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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, personal and oral hygiene for two (Resident #7 and Resident #8) of three residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to provide showers to Residents #7 and #8 in compliance with their shower schedules. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of a decline in hygiene, at risk of skin breakdown, level of satisfaction with life, and feelings of self-worth. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #7's, undated, face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #7 had diagnoses which included unspecified dementia (impairment of brain functions), pain in shoulders, fractured sixth cervical vertebra, hyperkalemia (high potassium) and lack of coordination. Record review of Resident #7's admission MDS assessment, dated 09/30/24, reflected a…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2024-09-10 · 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide based on the comprehensive assessment and care plan and the preferences of each resident, an ongoing program to support residents in their choice of activities, both facility-sponsored group and individual activities and independent activities, designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident, encouraging both independence and interaction in the community for 1 of 1 activity programs and two (Resident #1 and Resident #2) of four residents reviewed for activities. 1. The facility failed to provide an activity program designed to meet the interests and needs of Residents #1 and #2. 2. The facility failed to notify all residents of canceled and postponed activity programs. This deficient practice placed all residents at risk for a diminished quality of life, isolation, lack of stimulation, and a decline in mental status. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's face…

  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 · D2024-08-25 · tag F0655 — isolated
  Create and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a base line care plan that included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident, for one Resident (Resident #2) of four residents reviewed for base line care plans. The facility failed to timely and accurately assess resident's care plan needs. 1. Resident #2's baseline care plan problem start dates and approach dates for Residents #2's were dated 22 days and 21 days, respectively, prior to her admission to the facility. 2. Resident #2's care plan failed to address her preferred language, incontinent care, delirium, cognitive loss/dementia, activity preferences, and communication needs. 3. The care plan failed to address that Resident #2's functional abilities and goals reflected the use of the mobility device walker, and not a wheelchair. These failures could affect all residents by placing them at risk for not receiving care and services to meet their needs. Findings included: Review of the undated…

  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

“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

$8,577 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $8,577 — penalty dated 2023-09-25

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 FUNDAMENTAL HEALTHCARE — 66 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

4 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.

A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in TX