Liberty Health Care Center
1206 N Travis St, Liberty, TX 77575 · Government - Hospital district · 118 certified beds · (936) 336-7247 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602, F0607) — most recent Nov 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
- inspectors cited 3 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- inspectors recorded 2 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (19) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $217,078 in federal fines (most recent 2026-03-19)
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (70%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
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
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 1 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.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 12.9% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.8% | 3.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.5% | 2.4% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.9% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.6% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 30.9% | 18.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.8% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.3% | 3.8% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.7% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 1.6% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.8% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.5% | 25.7% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 17.2% | 12.3% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.47 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.92 | 2.06 | 1.80 | typical |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ 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.
43.5% 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 36 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 34.6% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 26 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 0.36 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 61% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 43.5%CMS range 32.4–60.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.7%CMS range 6.6–14.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no 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 discharge | 34.6% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 discharge | 26.9% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 30.8% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 identified | 70.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 setting | 92.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not 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 stay | 4.9% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 4.9% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.8%CMS range 3.6–12.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.25 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS 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
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 118 beds and averages 61.5 residents a day — about 52% occupied, or roughly 56 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 3.76 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.29 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.23 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 3.14 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.01 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.32 to 0.21 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 70% is well above the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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.
19 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2026-03-19 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for 1 of 11 residents (Resident #1) reviewed quality of care. LVN C did not immediately assess Resident #1 after she was informed Resident #1 had left leg swelling on 03/07/26 at approximately 5:15 a.m. LVN B assessed Resident #1 at approximately 6:40 a.m. (after being asked by LVN C) on 03/07/26 and discovered discoloration to arms and legs and pain when touched. The noncompliance was identified as PNC (past noncompliance). The IJ began on 03/07/26 and ended on 03/10/26. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure placed residents at risk of not receiving adequate care and medical interventions to maintain their health and prevent worsening health conditions.Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 03/17/26 indicated she…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2026-03-19 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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 residents received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 1 of 11 (Resident #1) residents reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to ensure CNA A performed a 2 person Hoyer lift transfer for Resident #1. CNA A transferred Resident #1 from wheelchair to bed, Resident #1 sustained a fractured left tibia (shin bone) and fibula (calf bone), avulsion injuries (skin torn away from its normal attachment) to her bilateral upper extremities, a large bruise on her back and a scratch to her forehead on 03/06/26. Resident #1 required surgical intervention. The noncompliance was identified as PNC (past noncompliance). The IJ began on 03/06/26 and ended on 03/10/26. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could place residents at risk of potential accidents, injuries, harm, or death.Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 03/17/26 indicated she was an [AGE] year-old…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-05-09 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
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 implement written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse of residents, for 1 of 10 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for abuse. 1. The facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse. *On 03/29/25 HSK A had a verbally aggressive argument with Resident #2 over cigarettes. Resident #2 told HSK A she wished she would shut up and HSK A got up from her chair and told Resident #2 to make her shut up. 2. The facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were reported to the Abuse Coordinator Immediately. *HSK B wrote a concern form and left it in the mailbox outside of the HR door on 03/29/25 about the witnessed verbal exchange between Resident #2 and HSK A. 3. The facility failed to report allegations of abuse to HHSC within two hours of being notified of the abuse allegation. *The Administrator did not report the allegation of verbal abuse on 03/31/25. The Administrator reported the allegations of verbal abuse to HHSC on 04/01/25.…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-05-09 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 10 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop and implement Resident #1's care plan to prevent suicide or self harm after she said she wanted to kill herself on 10/23/24. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 05/07/25 at 4:35 p.m. The IJ template was provided to the Administrator on 05/07/25 at 4:54 p.m. While the immediacy was removed on 05/08/25 at 4:55 p.m., the facility remained out of compliance at a severity level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm with a scope of isolated due to the facility's need to complete in-service training and evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-05-09 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 1 of 10 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents and supervision. The facility failed to provide adequate supervision after Resident #1 expressed suicidal ideations on 10/23/24. Resident #1 was placed on 15 minute monitoring. She attempted to cut her right wrist with a microblade razor (used for face shaving) between the 15 minute monitoring checks. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 05/07/25 at 4:35 p.m. The IJ template was provided to the Administrator on 05/07/25 at 4:54 p.m. While the immediacy was removed on 05/08/25 at 4:55 p.m., the facility remained out of compliance at a severity level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm with a scope of isolated due to the facility's need to complete in-service training and evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-11 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure, in accordance with State and Federal laws, all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments under proper temperature controls and permitted only authorized personnel to have access to the keys for one of nine residents (Resident #2) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 took her morning medications and the medications were not left in her room, unsecured, on her bedside table on 02/10/26. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not being monitored for their medications, adverse reactions, and drug diversion.Findings included: Record review of Resident #2's face sheet, dated 01/11/26, reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #2 had diagnoses which included delusional disorder (a type of serious mental illness characterized by holding one or more firm, false beliefs) and schizophrenia (mental health condition that affects…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2025-11-24 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — patternProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to be free from misappropriation of property and exploitation for 5 of 10 (Resident #1, #2, #3, #4, #5) reviewed for misappropriation and exploitation. 1.The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was free from exploitation when the former BOA accepted cash payment for Resident #1's June, July, August, and [DATE] payments (totaling $3,440.00), with only $2,184.00 deposited within a facility account on [DATE] (after BOA termination date) leaving $1,256.00 unaccounted for. 2. The facility failed to ensure Residents #2, #3, and #4 were free from exploitation when the former BOA created and cashed checks for Residents #2, #3, and #4 for personal need items without authorization from the resident or resident representative and no personal need items were provided to the residents involved. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #5 was free from exploitation when the former BOA made a money order (provided to…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-20 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to meet each resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs for 2 of 17 residents reviewed for care plans. (Residents #4 & #54) 1. The facility did not have a care plan to address Resident #4's hospice care. 2. The facility did not have a care plan to address Resident #54's indwelling urinary catheter (a thin, flexible tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) or catheter care. These failures could place residents at risk of not having their individual needs met and not receiving needed services. Findings included: 1. Record review of the face sheet dated 08/20/25 indicated Resident #4 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses included cerebral palsy (a congenital disorder of movement, muscle tone, or postured due to abnormal brain development often before birth) and muscle wasting and atrophy (waste away, especially because of degeneration…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-20 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
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 needed respiratory care, was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #25) reviewed for respiratory therapy. The facility failed to keep the oxygen concentrator filter clean for Resident #25. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving incorrect or inadequate oxygen support which could result in a decline in health. Findings included: Record review of Resident #25's face sheet dated 08/18/25, indicated he was a [AGE] year-old male readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), respiratory failure (a condition where the lungs are unable to adequately exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide resulting in dangerously low oxygen levels in the blood) and heart…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2025-07-17 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — patternEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 ensure its residents were free of any significant medication errors for 4 (Resident #1 Resident #2, Resident #3 and Resident #4) of 10 residents reviewed for medications. The facility failed to administer Midodrine (medication to increase blood pressure) per parameters stated in physicians' orders for a total of 10 doses in [DATE] for Resident #1.The facility failed to administer Midodrine per parameters stated in physicians' orders for a total of 11 doses in [DATE] for Resident #1.The facility failed to administer Midodrine per parameters stated in physicians' orders for a total of 1 dose in [DATE] for Resident #2.The facility failed to hold Midodrine per parameters stated in physicians' orders for a total of 5 doses in [DATE] for Resident #3.The facility failed to hold Midodrine per parameters stated in physicians' orders for a total of 3 doses in [DATE] for Resident #3.The facility failed to hold Nifedipine (medication to lower blood pressure) per…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-09 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect 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 interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the rights of residents to be free from abuse for 1 of 10 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 was free from verbal abuse by HSK A. On 03/29/25 HSK A had a verbally aggressive argument with Resident #2 over cigarettes. Resident #2 told HSK A she wished she would shut up and HSK A got up from her chair and told Resident #2 to make her shut up. This failure could place residents at risk for abuse, humiliation, intimidation, fear, shame, agitation, and decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #2's face sheet dated 05/09/25 indicated Resident #2 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included dementia (a condition characterized by progressive or persistent loss of intellectual functioning, especially with impairment of memory and abstract thinking, and often with personality change, resulting from organic disease of the brain), major…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-09 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, were reported, immediately but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, if the events that caused the allegation involved abuse or bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials, including the State Survey Agency in accordance with State law through established procedures for 1 of 10 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for reporting allegations of abuse. The facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were reported to the Abuse Coordinator Immediately. HSK B wrote a concern form and left it in the mailbox outside of the HR door on 03/29/25 about the witnessed verbal exchange between Resident #2 and HSK A. The facility failed to report allegations of abuse to HHSC within two hours of being notified of the abuse allegation. The Administrator did…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-09 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond 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 interview and record review the facility failed to have evidence alleged violations were thoroughly investigated to prevent further abuse for 1 of 10 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to thoroughly investigate after HSK A had a verbally aggressive argument with Resident #2 over cigarettes. Resident #2 told HSK A she wished she would shut up and HSK A got up from her chair and told Resident #2 to make her shut up. This failure could place residents at risk of not having allegations of abuse, neglect or exploitation investigated properly to prevent re-occurrence. Findings included: Record review of Resident #2's face sheet dated 05/09/25 indicated Resident #2 was a [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included dementia (a condition characterized by progressive or persistent loss of intellectual functioning, especially with impairment of memory and abstract thinking, and often with personality change, resulting from organic disease of 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-06-25 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide 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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy procedures to ensure an accurate accounting of all controlled drugs and the licensed pharmacist failed to ensure the drug records are in order and that an account of all controlled drugs is maintained and periodically reconciled for 2 of 4 medication carts reviewed for narcotic counts. (300 Hall Nurse Cart and 200/500 Halls Medication Aide Cart) The facility did not ensure staff were conducting accounting of Controlled Drugs at shift change on the 300 Hall Nurse Cart and 200/500 Halls Medication Aide Cart. The Pharmacy Consultant did not ensure the Controlled Drugs - Count Record forms had signatures of the staff indicating the Controlled Drugs were reconciled. These failures could place residents at risk for misappropriation and drug diversion. Findings included: Record review of the June 2024 Controlled Drugs - Count Record form on the 300 Hall Nurse Cart indicated: *on the day shift the nurse going off shift did not sign the form on 1st, 5th, 6th, 10th, 12th, 13th, 19th, 20th, and 21st; *on the night…
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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-06-25 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature controls, and permit only authorized personnel to have access, for 2 of 2 medications reviewed for security. The facility did not ensure clonidine (medication to treat elevated blood pressure) and a Fentanyl patch (narcotic opioid pain medication) medication was stored securely when it was left unattended at the nursing station. This failure could place residents at risk for harm by misappropriation of property and drug diversion. Findings included: During an observation on 06/23/24 at 12:28 p.m. of the nurse station, a card of clonidine (medication to treat elevated blood pressure) and a Fentanyl (narcotic opioid pain medication) patch were left on the desk unattended by a nurse or medication aide and accessible to staff, residents, and visitors. During an interview on 06/23/24 at 12:30 p.m., the Administrator was shown the card of clonidine and Fentanyl patch were on the desk of the nurse station unattended by a nurse or…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-25 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's needs identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 20 residents reviewed for following physician orders. (Resident #27) The facility did not apply Resident #27's hand splint as ordered by the physician This failure could place the residents at risk of a decline in their range of motion. Findings included: Record review of physician orders dated June 2024 indicated Resident #27, admitted [DATE], was an [AGE] year-old female with diagnoses of muscle wasting and atrophy and cerebral infarction (a condition that occurs when blood flow to the brain is disrupted causing the brain tissue to die). The orders indicated the resident was to have a resting hand splint to the right upper extremity to prevent contracture. The hand splint was to be removed every night. Record review of the quarterly MDS…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-25 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
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 that residents receiving enteral feeding received appropriate care and services to prevent complication of enteral feeding for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #272) reviewed for enteral feeding. The facility failed to ensure LVN A verified placement of Resident #272's G-tube by checking for tube placement before enteral administration of water and medications. The facility failed to ensure LVN A administered the flushes and medications using gravity. These failures could place residents receiving enteral nutrition and medications at increased risk of not receiving proper nutrition, infection, aspiration, and possible injury. Findings included: Record review of Resident #272's physician orders dated June 2024 indicated he was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included dysphagia (difficulty or discomfort swallowing). Orders indicated he was NPO (nothing by mouth), was to receive all feedings and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-04-19 · tag F0694 — isolatedProvide for the safe, appropriate administration of IV fluids for a resident when needed.
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 parenteral care and services were administered consistent with professional standards of practice for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for intravenous fluids. (Resident #39 and 82) *The facility failed to change Resident #39 and 82's midline catheter dressing in accordance with the resident's plan of care. (Midline catheter is an ultrasound guided catheter inserted in the upper arm peripheral veins for IV access) This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the appropriate IV care and services. Findings included: 1. Record review of physician orders dated April 2023 indicated Resident #39, admitted [DATE], was [AGE] years old with diagnoses of emphysema and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Record review of a physician order dated 04/13/23 for Resident #39 indicated Midline catheter to right arm - change sterile transparent dressing to insertion site using sterile technique Q (every) weekly and PRN (as needed) if…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-04-19 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish a system of records of receipt and disposition of all controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliation and drug records were in order and that an account of all controlled drugs was maintained for 1 of 18 residents (Resident #46) reviewed for pharmacy services. LVN A did not destroy the used fentanyl (scheduled II controlled medication used for severe pain) patch in a sharps container per policy and with a witness for destruction after the patch was removed from Resident #46. The facility did not ensure records for Resident #46 were complete with witness signatures for 5 days on control sheet for disposition of discarded fentanyl patch. This failure could place the residents at risk of drug diversion. Findings included: Record Review of physician orders summary dated April 2023 indicated Resident #46 admitted [DATE] and was [AGE] years old with diagnoses of chronic pain and kidney cancer. The orders…
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.
“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.
- 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.
Fines & penalties
$217,078 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $16,149 — penalty dated 2026-03-19
- $200,929 — penalty dated 2025-05-09
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 HEALTH SERVICES MANAGEMENT — 16 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 1 of 5 | 2.9 | -1.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 2.6 | -1.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
The other 15 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, 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 / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| HEALTH SERVICES MANAGEMENT, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2002 |
| LIBERTY REALTY, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| MURRELL, EDWARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/01/2024 |
| HSMTX/LIBERTY, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/07/2025 |
| REVIA, ADAM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| WHITE, JOSHUA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 06/01/2024 |
| BAXTER, KEVIN | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/23/2025 |
| JACKSON, BRIAN | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/22/2025 |
| FISHER, SCOTT | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
| WASSERSTEIN, JEROME | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 10 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 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 $661K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 10% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
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 Texas Medicaid page.
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 675540. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-20, 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.