Hansford Manor
707 S Roland St, Spearman, TX 79081 · Government - Hospital district · 60 certified beds · (806) 659-5535 Medicaid only — no Medicare
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it did not file the payroll staffing data CMS requires — its 1 of 5 staffing rating is the rating CMS assigns for not reporting, not a measure of how many nurses are on the floor
- its facility-reported quality-measure 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) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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 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.
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 | 18.8% | 15.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.4% | 3.0% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 4.9% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 5.8% | 0.8% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.4% | 2.4% | 6.5% | worse 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 | 3.7% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.6% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.4% | 18.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.9% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.5% | 13.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.6% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 4.8% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.44 | 2.17 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.99 | 2.06 | 1.80 | 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.
Staffing
No payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours are on file for this home — and the record suggests that is because it did not report them. CMS rates its staffing 1 of 5, which is the rating CMS assigns when a home does not report. Every Medicare-certified nursing home is required to submit its actual payroll data quarterly, and that submission is what makes staffing numbers auditable rather than a claim. A home that does not file is not the same as a home with no data yet: ask this home directly what its nurse-to-resident ratios and weekend RN coverage are, why its payroll data is not filed, and weigh the independent health-inspection score heavily in the meantime.
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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-09-10 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with the professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation. 1. The facility failed to ensure food items were properly stored, labeled, and dated.2. The facility failed to the kitchen was free of expired foods.These failures could place residents who ate food served by the kitchen at risk of food-borne illness. Findings included: Findings included: In an observation and interview of the kitchen with the DM and the RD on 9/8/25 at 10:10 AM the following was observed in the freezer:1. large plastic bag of French fries, open to air, not in original box2. 3 brown bags of a food item, no label, not in original boxIn an interview during the observation of the freezer on 9/8/25 at 10:12 am the DM stated of the large bag of French fries Oh yes, it should be fastened. I will throw it out now. The DM stated the brown bags of food were French fries. She stated the facility only received brown bags with French fries in…
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all residents had the right to formulate an advanced directive for 1 (Resident #25) of 24 residents reviewed for advanced directives. Resident #25 had a DNR in her record that was missing the date of when Resident #25 signed the DNR. This failure could place residents a risk for not receiving healthcare as per their or their legal representatives wishes.Findings included: Record review of Resident #25's face sheet revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include (idiopathic) normal pressure hydrocephalus (a neurological condition primarily affecting older adults characterized by enlarged ventricles in the brain and a specific triad of symptoms: difficulty walking, gait disturbances, cognitive decline, and urinary incontinence), chronic kidney disease (longstanding disease of the kidneys leading to kidney failure), and peripheral vascular disease (a circulatory condition…
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 F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment and describes the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 (Resident #1) of 15 Residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. -The facility failed to include a care plan for Resident #1's wounds. This failure could result in resident not being able to attain or maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings include: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 9/08/2025 revealed a [AGE] year-old male resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning),…
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 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 residents who need respiratory care were provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 (Resident #12) of 15 residents reviewed for respiratory care. -Resident #12 was not receiving oxygen at the correct dose. This failure could place residents at risk for respiratory compromise and associated complications such as shortness of breath, confusion, respiratory failure, infection, and exacerbation of their condition. Findings include: Record review of Resident #12's admission record dated 09/08/25 revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breath), chronic respiratory failure (a long-term condition that occurs when the body's respiratory system can't exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide properly), dementia (a group of thinking and social 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 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review; the facility failed to ensure a medication was labeled and stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for 1 of 2 medication carts reviewed for medication storage. The Hall 2 medication cart had a inulin pen that had been used that was not marked with the date of when it was opened/accessed or when it should expire. This failure could result in ineffective treatment resulting in exacerbation of resident's disease processes.Findings include: During an observation on [DATE] at 8:48 AM of the Hall 2 medication cart with LVN A present, an Insulin Glargine Pen was not marked with the date of when it was opened or when it would expire. During an interview on [DATE] at 8:50 AM LVN A (the nurse administering medication from the Hall 2 medication cart that shift) reported the Insulin Glargine Pen was not marked with a date of when it was opened/accessed and when it would expire. LVN A reported that the insulin appeared to have been used and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-21 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to complete an assessment that accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 14 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for accuracy of MDS assessments. The facility failed to complete an accurate assessment for Resident #4, the assessment indicated she received insulin and did not. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk for not receiving adequate care and services. Findings included: Record review of Resident #4's face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include but not limited to hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy (nerve damage in the arms and legs), bipolar disorder, type 2 diabetes mellitus (high blood sugar levels), and chronic pain. Record review of Resident #4's Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #4 had a BIMS score of 13 out of 15 which indicated that she was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated in Section N0300 (Injections) that Resident #4 received 1 insulin…
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 before2024-08-21 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment and describes the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 2 (Resident #28 and Resident #101) of 14 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to include bed rail use in the care plans of Resident #28 and Resident #101. These failures could place residents at risk of harm due to incorrect care and/or lack of monitoring. Findings Included: 1. Record review of Resident #28's admission record dated 08/19/24 revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, dementia (a group 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 · D2024-08-21 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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 attempt to use appropriate alternatives prior to installing a side or bed rail for 2 (Resident #4 and Resident #101) of 14 residents reviewed for bed rails. The facility placed bed rails on the beds of Resident #4 and Resident #101 on the day the residents were admitted without attempting other interventions. These failures could place residents at risk of entrapment or injury due to bed rails. Finding included: 1. Record review of Resident #4's admission record dated 08/20/24 revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy (nerve damage that can cause pain, weakness, numbness, or tingling as well as motor symptoms like muscle weakness and loss of mass in different parts of the body characterized by impact on both afferent nerve cells [carry sensory information to the central nervous system] and efferent nerve cells [carry…
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 · E2023-06-21 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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 the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as is possible for 14 of 49 residents (Resident #7 and the 13 residents residing on the north end of hall 1) reviewed for accident hazards. 1. Resident #7 was allowed to keep his cigarettes and lighter with him. 2. Three 200 mg tablets of Amiodarone were found on the floor of the north end of hall 1. These failures could place residents at risk of injury. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #7's face sheet, dated 06/19/23, revealed an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interfere with daily functioning), unspecified mood disorder (a disorder with symptoms that cause distress or impairment in social and/or occupational function), nicotine dependence, anxiety disorder (mental disorder…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-21 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to 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 of 2 residents (Resident #3 and #40) and 1 of *(Nutrition Aide-(NA D) observed for infection control practices. NA D failed to use proper hand hygiene techniques when providing feeding assistance between Resident #3 and Resident #40. This failure may place resident at an increased risk for transmissible diseases. Findings include: Record review of Resident #3's face sheet dated 6/19/23 revealed an [AGE] year old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, Dementia (decreased ability of memory, thinking, activities of daily life), Unspecified Protein-Calorie Malnutrition (not enough protein or calories taken into body for normal metabolism), Cerebral Infarction (damage 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.
“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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in TX
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 45F497. 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.