Rio Grande City Nursing And Rehabilitation Center
2530 Central Palm Dr, Rio Grande City, TX 78582 · Government - Hospital district · 110 certified beds · (956) 487-3996 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (24% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- 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
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (18) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $13,514 in federal fines (most recent 2024-11-04)
- 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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 9.8% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.1% | 3.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 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 | 0.3% | 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 | 2.2% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.1% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.5% | 18.0% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.6% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 8.8% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 23.0% | 9.6% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.8% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 38.7% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 23.8% | 12.3% | 12.0% | worse |
‡ 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.
50.9% 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 47 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 63.6% 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 22 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 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 33% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 50.9%CMS range 35.8–68.7 | 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 | 11.4%CMS range 7.0–16.1 | 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 | 63.6% | 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 | 77.3% | 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 | 45.5% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | not 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 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.03 | 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 110 beds and averages 88.0 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 22 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.28 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.47 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.07 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 2.95 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.42 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.54 to 0.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 24% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
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.
18 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 7 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · G2024-11-04 · 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 interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents and supervision. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received adequate supervision to prevent accidents as Resident #1 was left unsupervised in the dining room and fell on [DATE], sustaining a 2.5 cm laceration with 3 staples. This failure could place residents at risk of injury and a decreased quality of life. The findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 10/30/24 reflected an [AGE] year-old female with an original admission date of 10/04/24. Her diagnosis included: unspecified dementia, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, anemia, depression, mood disorder, anxiety disorder, insomnia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and osteoarthritis (degenerative joint disease). Record review of Resident #1's care plan dated 10/30/24 reflected Problem: [Resident #1] was at risk for falls related 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 · D2026-06-11 · 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 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 not 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 the State Survey Agency, in accordance with State law through established procedures, for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for freedom from abuse, neglect, and exploitation. CNA A failed to report an incident of abuse immediately to the Administrator. CNA A alleged she observed CNA B cover Resident #1's mouth with her hand to quiet Resident #1.This failure could place residents at risk of abuse and not having allegations of abuse or neglect reported to the State Survey Agency to ensure allegations were fully investigated. The findings include:Record review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-05 · 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, that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial need that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for comprehensive person-centered care plans.The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's interventions for her unwitnessed fall on 03/01/26 and 03/30/26 specified the location to which she was to be taken for activities. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not being provided with the necessary care or services and not having personalized plans developed to address their specific needs.Findings included:Record review of Resident #1's admission record, dated 05/05/26, reflected a [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 05/13/25. Her relevant diagnoses included dementia (a general term for 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-20 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
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 the residents have the right to be informed of the risks and benefits of proposed care, of treatment and treatment alternatives or treatment options and to choose the alternative or option he or she prefers, for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for consent for antipsychotic medications in that: Resident #1 was prescribed and administered Haldol (an antipsychotic) without prior consent based on information of the benefits, risks, and options available. This failures could affect the right to self-determination of all facility residents who receive medication by allowing them to receive medication without their prior knowledge or consent, or that of their responsible party or emergency contacts.The findings included:Record review of Resident #1's admission record dated 11/19/25 reflected, a [AGE] year-old male. His relevant diagnoses included schizophrenia (a serious brain disorder characterized by a distorted perception 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-20 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
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, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to have sufficient nursing staff with the appropriate competencies and skill sets to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable, physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 4 CNAs (CNA B) reviewed for competent nursing care. The facility failed to ensure CNA B communicated Resident #2's change of condition to the charge nurse on 12/01/25. This failure could place residents at risk of not having change in conditions assessed, decreased quality of life, and/or death. The findings included:Record review of Resident #2's admission sheet dated 11/18/25, reflected a [AGE] year-old female with an admit date of 10/27/25 and an initial admission date of 09/28/22. Her relevant diagnoses included vascular dementia, pain in left knee, malignant neoplasm of skin, protein-calorie malnutrition, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Record review of Resident #2's significant…
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 · D2025-11-20 · 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 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 ADON-LVN A signed off the administration of Haldol injection solution 5 mg/ml (Haloperidol lactate) for Resident #1 on 11/06/25. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving their medications as ordered by their physician.The findings included:Record review of Resident #1's admission record dated 11/19/25 reflected, a [AGE] year-old male. His relevant diagnoses included schizophrenia (a serious brain disorder characterized by a distorted perception of reality, with symptoms including hallucinations, delusions, disorganized thinking, and social withdrawal), anxiety disorder (a mental health condition characterized by persistent and excessive worry that interferes with daily life, causing symptoms…
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 before2025-09-10 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents for one of three residents (Resident #58) reviewed for call lights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #58 had the call light within reach while in bed in his room.This failure could place residents at risk of being unable to obtain assistance or help when needed and in the event of an emergency. Findings were:Record review of Resident #58's admission record dated 09/10/25 reflected an [AGE] year-old male. Resident #58 had diagnoses which included Cerebral Infraction (when blood flow to brain is interrupted, causing damage to brain tissue), Unspecified, Hypertensive Heart Disease without Heart Failure (prolonged high blood pressure that damages 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 · D2025-09-10 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to formulate an advance directive for 1 (Resident #12) of 1 resident reviewed for Advance Directives.The facility failed on [DATE] to ensure Resident # 12's Out-of-Hospital Do-Not-Resuscitate (OOH-DNR) order form was completed. The OOH-DNR form did not have a date next to the physician's signature under the Physician's Statement section of the form. This failure could affect all residents who have implanted Advanced Directives and established their choice not to be resuscitated at risk of receiving Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) against their wishes.The findings include:Record review of Resident # 12's electronic face sheet, dated [DATE], revealed an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnosis included Vascular Dementia with mild anxiety, Hypertension (high blood pressure), Hyperlipidemia (high level of fats in the blood), and Acute Kidney Failure. Resident #12's Code Status was Do…
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 · D2025-09-10 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
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 notify the resident and the resident's representative(s) of the transfer or discharge and the reason for the move in writing and in a language and manner they understood and send a copy of the notice to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #85 and Resident #87) reviewed for transfer and discharge rights. The facility failed to notify the Ombudsman of Resident #85's discharge from the facility. 2. Resident #87 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] without a notice to the LTC state ombudsman. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving an advocate who can inform them of their options, rights, and the added protection from being inappropriately transferred or discharged . Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #85's face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted on [DATE] and discharged on 08/22/25. Resident #85 had diagnoses which included, chronic…
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 · D2025-09-10 · 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 fluids were administered consistent with professional standards of practice and in accordance with physician orders, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents goals and preferences for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #62) reviewed for intravenous fluids. The facility failed to ensure the dressing on Resident #62's peripheral intravenous line (a short flexible tube inserted into the vein to administer fluids and medications) was dated and initialed on 09/08/2025. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the appropriate IV care and services. The findings include: Record review of Resident #62's admission record, dated 06/04/25, revealed an [AGE] year-old female. Resident #62 had diagnoses which included Colle's' fracture of right radius (type of wrist fracture that occurs when the distal radius the lower end of the radius bone in the forearm] breaks and bends backward), other fractures 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-10 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and included the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable and in accordance with State and Federal laws, all drugs and biologicals were stored locked compartments under proper temperature controls, and permitted only authorized personnel to have access to the keys for 4 of 4 medication carts (Med-Cart A, Med-Cart B, Med-Cart C, and Med-Cart D) reviewed for labeling and storage.1. The facility failed to ensure medications were properly stored in the Med-Carts A, B and C on 9/9/2025 2. The facility failed to ensure expired medications were not stored on Med-Cart D.These deficient practices could place residents at risk for adverse effects and not receiving the therapeutic effects of the medication and not receiving prescribed medications as ordered, placing the facility at risk of drug diversion. The findings included:1. Observation on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 7 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 establish and maintain an infection 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 1 of 16 rooms (Room X) reviewed for infection control practices.The facility failed to ensure the sharps container was empty in room X. This failure could place residents at risk of communicable diseases. The findings include: During an observation on 09/8/25 at 10:00 a.m. revealed Room X's sharp container was overfilled, and needles were sticking out of the container. During an interview on 9/8/25 at 10:32 a.m., LVN E stated nurses were responsible for changing the sharp containers when the sharp container was two thirds full. LVN E stated staff could poke themselves when trying to dispose of a needle. LVN E stated the residents in room X were not ambulatory. During an interview on 9/10/25 at 3:10 p.m., the DON stated nurses were responsible for changing the sharp containers. The DON stated nurses…
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 · D2024-11-04 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 accurately assess the resident's status for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's fall risk evaluation on 10/04/24, baseline care plan on 10/04/24 and the MDS assessment on 10/14/24 accurately reflected her risk of falls. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving care and services to meet their needs. The findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 10/30/24 reflected an [AGE] year-old female with an original admission date of 10/04/24. Her diagnoseis included: unspecified dementia, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, anemia, depression, mood disorder, anxiety disorder, insomnia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and osteoarthritis (degenerative joint disease). Record review of Resident #1's care plan dated 10/30/24 reflected Problem: [Resident #1] was at risk for falls related to confusion, gait/balance problems, unaware…
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 · E2024-08-08 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents who have not used psychotropic drugs are not given these drugs unless the medication is necessary to treat a specific condition as diagnosed and documented in the clinical record for 3 (Resident #14, Resident #58, and Resident #65) of 7 residents whose records were reviewed for pharmacy services. 1.The facility failed to ensure Resident #14 was not prescribed Risperidone (an antipsychotic) without appropriate diagnosis for its use. 2.The facility failed to ensure Resident #58 was not prescribed Seroquel (an antipsychotic) without appropriate diagnosis for its use. 3.The facility failed to ensure Resident #65 was not prescribed Seroquel (an antipsychotic) without appropriate diagnosis for its use. This deficient practice could place residents without a diagnosis for taking psychotropic medications at risk for receiving unnecessary medications. The findings were: 1. Record review of Resident #14's admission record, dated 08/06/2024,…
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 · D2024-08-08 · 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 that residents who needed respiratory care received such care consistent with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #83) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #83 received oxygen at the prescribed rate. He received oxygen at a rate less than prescribed. This failure could place residents receiving oxygen at risk for respiratory distress. The findings included: Record review of Resident #83's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed resident with a BIMS score of 06 which suggests a severe cognitive impairment. Resident required Substantial/maximal assistance for self-care except eating and oral hygiene which required supervision or touching assistance. Resident with diagnosis of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Fibrosis and received oxygen therapy under special treatments/respiratory treatments. Record review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-20 · 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 develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident needs, that include measurable objectives and time frames to meet residents' physical needs for 2 (Resident #1 and #2) of 8 residents reviewed for comprehensive person-centered care plans. The facility failed to care plan Resident #1 and #2 the use of a raised perimeter mattress. The failure is affecting one male and one female resident, both use a raised perimeter mattress. Findings included: 1.Record review of Resident #1's electronic facility face sheet dated 6/18/24, revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Cerebral Infarction (stroke), Muscle weakness, Dementia (group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning), Alzheimers (a brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills and, eventually, the ability to carry out the simplest tasks),…
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 before2023-05-18 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of resident needs for 1 (Resident #138) of eight residents reviewed for call lights: Resident #138's call light was not placed within reach and provided with a soft ball device for ease of use by the resident. This failure could place residents who used call lights for assistance in maintaining and/or achieving independent functioning, dignity, and well-being. Findings included: Record review of Resident's #138's admission record face sheet, dated 05/17/23 indicated Resident #138 was an 88 -year-old male admitted on [DATE] with dementia (inability to remember, think, or make decisions), hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes (metabolic disorder in which body has high sugar levels for prolonged periods of time, heart failure (heart disease that affects pumping of the heart muscles), chronic ulcer of the other part of left foot (a perforation of the skin), spinal stenosis (spinal canal narrowing,…
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.
- No harm found · C2024-06-20 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
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 ensure nurse staffing data was posted and readily accessible to residents and visitors for seven days of 7 days (06/11/2024, 06/12/2024, 06/13/2024, 06/14/2024, 06/15/2024, 06/16/2024, and 06/17/2024) reviewed for nurse staffing information. The facility failed to post and maintain the required nursing staffing information to include facility name, current date, current resident census, and total number and actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed nursing staff for dates of June 11th through June 17th, 2024. These failures could place residents, their families, and facility visitors at risk of not having access to information regarding facility regarding staffing schedule and facility census. Findings included: During observation on 06/17/2024 at 8:45 a.m., the public access area wall located near the central nursing station revealed daily staffing sheet posting information dated 06/10/2024. The current date and information on staff scheduled and total hours worked were not posted. During observation 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.
“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
$13,514 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $13,514 — penalty dated 2024-11-04
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 WELLSENTIAL HEALTH — 67 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 1.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
The other 66 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.7★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 66; lowest-rated first.
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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STARR COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 02/28/2015 |
| REGENCY IHS OF RIO GRANDE CITY, LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| CSV RHEA MANAGEMENT HOLDCO, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| DWD TX HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| JACK AND NANCY DWYER WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT CENTER INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| REG HG OPCO 1, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| REG HG OPCO LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| REG OPERATOR HOLDCO LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| REGENCY INTEGRATED HEALTH SERVICES LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| REGENCY TEXAS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| BAIRD, DANIEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 04/13/2021 |
| CLAPP, BARBARA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 06/01/2021 |
| CORTESE, DAREN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 08/10/2021 |
| GIBSON, PATRICIA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 08/01/2021 |
| GUERRA, ADRIAN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 05/01/2016 |
| MANDELBAUM, ELLIOT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| MUNOZ, THALIA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/1982 |
| PENA, ELISA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 05/01/2022 |
| SALINAS, ARCADIO | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 09/17/2024 |
| DEKOWSKI, DONOVAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| PENA, ALEGRIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/29/2024 |
| 2530 CENTRAL PALM DRIVE LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| REGENCY IHS CLINICAL CONSULTING, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| REGENCY IHS MASTER TENANT LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| REGENCY IHS REHAB LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| GONZALES, ANA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| MARTINEZ, ARTURO | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| PENA, EMANUEL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 37 rows in the source record cover these 28 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
14 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 86% 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.
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 676119. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-10, 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.