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

Las Alturas De Penitas

414 Liberty Blvd., Penitas, TX 78576 · For profit - Corporation · 130 certified beds · (210) 828-5686 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Feb 20255 immediate-jeopardy citations$166,236 in federal fines
Insights

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

In its favor
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (35% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Feb 2025
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • inspectors cited 5 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • the CMS record shows $166,236 in federal fines (most recent 2025-02-01)
  • its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
  • its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)

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

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

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

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

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
1000 E Expressway 83 · (956) 583-2646 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1705 Expressway 83 · (956) 580-1511 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
101 Tom Gill Rd · (956) 581-9746 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Penitas Park Ave · (956) 581-3345 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

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

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

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

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

Overall rating2★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased17.0%15.8%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight2.4%3.0%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.3%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.7%0.8%2.0%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.0%2.4%6.5%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury5.4%3.3%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened14.4%14.0%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication14.7%18.0%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%98.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers2.9%3.8%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control7.2%13.4%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table8.8%9.6%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication2.5%1.5%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine98.0%88.0%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission16.3%25.7%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit5.2%12.3%12.0%better

* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

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.

44.5% 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 46 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

44.5%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.7%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
51.7%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.31U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.12hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.12hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.06hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 51.7% 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 29 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 0.31 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 50% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF44.5%CMS range 31.1–61.951.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.7%CMS range 8.4–15.310.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge51.7%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge41.4%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge37.9%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.1%CMS range 3.6–10.77.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.161.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

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

Staffing

0.37
RN hours/ resident / day
0.77
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.17
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.31
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.26
RN hoursweekends
35.1%
Total nursing turnover
28.6%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 130 beds and averages 88.7 residents a day — about 68% occupied, or roughly 41 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 3.31 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.37 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.17 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 2.94 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.46 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.41 to 0.26 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 35% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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

4
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-05-28)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2025-03-12)

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

Inspection deficiencies

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

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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

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

  • Immediate jeopardy · J2025-02-01 · 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 interview and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the residents had the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation for 3 of 3 residents (Resident #24, Resident #25 and Resident #26) reviewed for abuse. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #26 did not inappropriately touch Resident #25 in the groin area, over his clothing, on 02/10/24 . 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #26 did not inappropriately touch Resident #24 in the breast area on 04/16/24. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 01/30/25. While the IJ was removed on 01/31/25 at 2:09 p.m., the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated with a potential for more than minimal harm, due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems . These failures could place residents at risk of emotional distress, fear, decreased quality of life and further abuse. The findings were: Record review of Resident #26's admission…

    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
  • Immediate jeopardy · K2024-01-26 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — pattern
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility staff failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 9 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to identify a chnge in condtion for 9 hour for Resident #1, across 2 shifts on 01/14.24. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 01/23/24. While the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 01/26/24 at 10:36 am, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of pattern with no actual harm that is immediate, due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. This failure could place residents at increased risk of decline in physical health. Findings include: Record Review of Resident #1's admission record dated 01/19/24 reflected Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnose which included of parkinson's disease (chronic degenerative disorder 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Immediate jeopardy · K2024-01-26 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — pattern
    Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
    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 acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight or desirable body weight range and electrolyte balance,unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrated that this was not possible, or resident preferences indicate otherwise for one of nine residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 did not sustain a significant weight loss of 18.18% in a 30-day period. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 01/23/24. While the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 01/26/24 at 10:36 am, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of pattern with no actual harm that is immediate, due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. This failure could place residents at increased risk of decline in physical health. Findings include: Record Review of Resident #1's admission record dated 01/19/24 reflected Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old male…

    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
  • Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2023-12-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — pattern
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident received adequate supervision / interventions for 2 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #99) of 5 residents reviewed for supervision / interventions, in that The facility failed to ensure Resident #1, and Resident #99 received supervision and interventions to prevent Resident #1 and Resident #99 from repeated falls with injuries. An Immediate Jeopardy was identified on 12/15/23. The Immediate Jeopardy template was provided to the facility Administrator on 12/15/23 at 04:35 p.m. While the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 12/18/23 at 04:45 p.m., the facility remained out of compliance at a severity level of actual harm that is not immediate and a scope of pattern due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems that were put into place. This failure could place residents at risk for accidents and injury. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's admission Record dated…

    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
  • Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2023-10-03 · 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 interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure services were provided with adequate use of assistive devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 5 residents, Resident #5 (R #5) reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to ensure staff were adequately trained in the use of mechanical lifts needed for resident transfers. CNA C and NAIT D did not ensure mechanical lift sling was properly attached to the lift's hooking mechanism when transferring R #5, resulting in sling releasing from hook and R #5 landing face first on the floor, which caused R #5 to sustain a mild right temporal subdural acute hematoma, interhemispheric subdural hematoma, bilateral nasal bone fractures, left medial orbital fracture, forehead/nasal bridge lacerations, and 9 stitches (8 on top of his left eye and 1 on his nose bridge). This failure could lead to the injury of residents that are transferred with a mechanical lift. An Immediate Jeopardy was identified on 09/28/23. The Immediate Jeopardy template was provided to the…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-05-28 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to formulate an advance directive for 1 (Resident #5) of 3 residents reviewed for Advance Directives.The facility failed to ensure Resident #5's OOH-DNR was completed. The OOH-DNR form did not have the physician's signature dated, printed name or License number.This failure could affect all residents who have implemented Advance Directives and established their choice not to be resuscitated at risk of receiving CPR against their wishes.The findings were:Record review of Resident #5's electronic face sheet dated 05/28/2026 reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE], diagnoses included Unspecified Dementia Unspecified Severity with other Behavioral Disturbance (decline in memory and cognitive skills), Hypertension (high blood pressure), Atherosclerotic Heart Disease of Native Coronary Artery with Unspecified Angina Pectoris (heart receives…

    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 · D2026-05-28 · tag F0645 — isolated
    PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all pre-admission screening and resident review (PASRR) Level 1 residents with mental illness were provided with an accurate PASRR Level 1 for 1 (Resident #93) of 3 residents reviewed for PASRR screening. Resident #93 did not have an accurate and updated PASRR Level 1 assessment reflecting a diagnosis of mental illness.This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving specialized services that would enhance their highest level of functioning. Findings were:Record review of Resident #93's admission Record dated 05/28/26 reflected a [AGE] year-old male with an admission date of 04/10/26 and diagnoses of Essential (Primary) Hypertension (high blood pressure), Mild neurocognitive Disorder Due to Known Physiological Condition Without Behavioral Disturbance (decline in memory or thinking skills), Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 4 (severe kidney damage) and Other Seizures (uncontrolled…

    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 before2026-05-28 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide 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 that residents who needed respiratory care were provided with such care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences for 1 of 1 (Resident #69) residents reviewed for tracheostomy/respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #69's oxygen tubing was connected properly to the tracheostomy mask (used to deliver humidified air and oxygen) on 05/26/26. The facility failed to ensure Resident #69's oxygen was administered at the correct setting of 5 liters per minute (LPM) on 05/26/26 as ordered by the physician. The facility failed to ensure Resident #69's humidifier bottle (a device that attaches to your concentrator to add moisture to the continuous flow of oxygen) was changed on the day indicated by the physician. These deficient practices could place residents who receive respiratory care via tracheostomy at an increased risk 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 · D2026-05-28 · tag F0813 — isolated
    Have a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to enact a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors to ensure safe and sanitary storage, handling and consumption for 2 (Resident #13 and Resident #43) of 4 resident refrigerators reviewed for refrigerator sanitation. The facility failed to ensure Resident #13 and Resident #43's personal refrigerator did not contain food that was not labeled, dated or expired.Resident #13's personal refrigerator had 3 small individual cups of yogurt that had no expiration date and a plastic ziploc bag with candy pieces that was not labeled or dated.Resident #43's personal refrigerator had 4 small probiotic drink bottles with no expiration date on them and 1 individual cup of yogurt that was expired.This failure could place residents who store food items in resident refrigerators, at risk of cross-contamination and food-borne illnesses if consumed.Findings…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-03-30 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
    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 and record review, the facility failed to ensure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 3 (Resident #1) residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was administered her order of Sodium Chloride Solution 0.9% as ordered. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic benefits of prescribed medications.The findings included: Record review of Resident #1's admission record, dated 03/26/26, reflected a [AGE] year old female with an admit date of 07/19/23, an initial admission date of 05/17/23 and a discharge date of 03/26/26. Her relevant diagnoses included dementia (decline in mental ability-including memory loss, language difficulties, and poor reasoning-severe enough to interfere with daily life), chronic kidney disease, stage 3 (moderate kidney damage), anemia (blood disorder where the blood lacks enough healthy red…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-12 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #22) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #22's oxygen was administered at 2 lmp instead of 2.5 lpm via nasal cannula as ordered by physician. This failure could place resident(s) at risk of developing respiratory complications and having a decreased quality of care. The findings included: Record review of Resident #22's admission record, dated 03/10/25, reflected an [AGE] year-old male admitted to facility on 11/04/22 and had a readmission date on 09/09/23. His relevant diagnoses included dementia (a decline in mental ability that interferes with daily life, memory loss, thinking abilities, and behavioral changes), Alzheimer's disease (a progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions), and hypoxemia (a condition where…

    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 · D2025-03-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program, designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections, for 2 (Resident #36 and Resident # 78) out of 4. 1. LVN A did not perform hand hygiene for 20 seconds or longer after medication administration to Resident #36. 2. The facility failed to prevent Resident#78's urinary catheter bag/tubing from touching the floor. These failures could place residents at risk for infection through cross contamination of pathogens. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident # 36's face sheet dated 3/11/2025 reflected a [AGE] year-old male with an admission date of 10/24/2024. Diagnoses included Pressure ulcer of unspecified buttock stage 2, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (a group of lung conditions that cause long-term damage to the airways and lungs, leading 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-01 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview 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 no later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, if the events that caused the allegation involved abuse or resulted in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials, including to the State Survey Agency, in accordance with State law through established procedures for three of three residents (Resident#24, Resident#25, and Resident#26) reviewed for reporting abuse. The facility failed to report two separate incidents of resident-to-resident abuse to the state agency within the given time frame. This failure could place residents at increased risk for potential abuse. The findings were: 1. Record review of Resident #26's admission Record, dated 04/18/24, revealed a [AGE] year-old male with admission date 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-01 · 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 set forth, that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for one of three residents (Resident#26) reviewed for comprehensive person centered care plan . The facility failed to ensure Resident #26's care plan reflected the need for interventions for monitoring inappropriate behaviors with residents after 2 separate incidents of inappropriate behavior with 2 Residents (Resident #24 and Resident #25) had occurred . This failure could place residents in the facility at risk of not being provided with the necessary care or services and implementing personalized plans developed to address their specific needs. The findings were : 1. Record review of Resident #26's admission Record, dated 04/18/24, revealed a…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-01 · 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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents remained free from accidents, hazards and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance when being transferred for 1 of residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents and hazards, CNA A failed to transfer Resident #1 using two employees as required by his care plan. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents in the building who require assistance with transfers by 2 staff members by causing resident injuries, such as falls, fractures, and even death. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's Face Sheet dated 12/31/24 documented a [AGE] year-old male was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses: dementia (a general term for a group of brain disorders that cause a gradual decline in cognitive abilities, memory, and behavior), muscle weakness (a condition where a muscle is unable to contract properly, resulting in a loss of strength), unspecified lack of coordination…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-12-18 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source were reported immediately to the State Survey Agency, within two hours, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious injury for 1 resident (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for abuse/neglect, The facility did not report the allegation of resident abuse to the State Survey Agency within the allotted time frame for Resident #1 who had unwitnessed falls and/or falls withinjury on 12/03/22 (left hip fracture) and 08/26/23 (right hip fracture). The facility did not report the allegation of resident abuse to the State Survey Agency within the allotted time frame for Resident #1 who had dark discoloration to both feet tops to her toes (Injury of Unknown Origin). The facility…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-12-18 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolated
    Ensure 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 observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of any significant medication errors for 1 (Resident #45) of 5 residents reviewed for medication administration. Resident #45 had Metoprolol (a medication for high blood pressure) administered outside the parameters as ordered by the physician. This deficient practice could place residents who receive blood pressure medications at an increased risk for complications such as decreased blood pressure, decrease pulse, an exacerbation of symptoms and disease process, and potential hospitalization. Findings include: Record review of Resident #45's electronic face sheet revealed an [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, Essential Hypertension (high blood pressure), Atherosclerotic (hardening of the arteries) Heart Disease, Unspecified Dementia, Hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid), Muscle Weakness Generalized, Age Related Physical Debility, Unspecified Lack of…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

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

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

Fines & penalties

$166,236 in federal fines across 4 penalties.

  • $11,164 — penalty dated 2025-02-01
  • $51,887 — penalty dated 2024-01-26
  • $87,292 — penalty dated 2023-12-18
  • $15,893 — penalty dated 2023-10-03

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 TOUCHSTONE COMMUNITIES — 25 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 3 of 52.9+0.1 vs chain
Health inspection 2 of 53.0-1.0 vs chain
Staffing 2 of 51.7+0.3 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 54.0+1.0 vs chain
The other 24 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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
VAL VERDE COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICTOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 03/01/2024
FROST BANKOrganization5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTERESTsince 02/15/2024
JURADO, JORGEIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/26/2024
TOUCHSTONE STRATEGIES - PENITAS, LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2024
CAMPBELL, LESLIEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2020
CASTILLO, LYNNEAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2024
GILCREASE, CYNTHIAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2024
HINOJOSA, ROSAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/18/2024
OLIVAREZ, YVONNEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/06/2024
SEHLKE, BRYONIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2024
ZUROVEC, DARRELLIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2024
AEGIS THERAPIES, INC.OrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2024
CARVAJAL PHARMACY LTCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2024
NUTRITIOUS LIFESTYLES, INC.OrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2024
PLANTE & MORAN PLLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2024
THE BRYON AND RENA SEHLKE LIVING TRUSTOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2023
TOUCHSTONE COMMUNITIES INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2024
TOUCHSTONE REALTY - PENITAS LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2024
TRIDENT HEALTH SERVICES INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2024
FELLBAUM, ERNESTIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 07/17/2019
STUDER, STANLEYIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 07/17/2019

CMS files one row per role, so the 29 rows in the source record cover these 21 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

11 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$8.1M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-6.7%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.0M
Related-party expense12% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 74%Medicare 11%Other / private 14%

About 74% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.0M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$269per resident / day
operating cost
$8,178per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$252per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in TX

Paying with Medicaid

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

Typical monthly cost in Texas
$5,627/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$7,604/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,666/mo
Assisted living

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

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 745000. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-28, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

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

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

What to do next