Wharton Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
1220 Sunny Lane, Wharton, TX 77488 · Government - Hospital district · 120 certified beds · (979) 532-5020 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $62,125 in federal fines (most recent 2026-02-06)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (65%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
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 | 5 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 3 to 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 5.6% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.4% | 3.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 2.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 2.0% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.9% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.9% | 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 | 2.1% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 1.6% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 14.0% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.6% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.9% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.3% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.1% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
39.0% 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 45 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 24% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 39.0%CMS range 27.5–52.2 | 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 | 11.0%CMS range 7.7–15.4 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 6.7%CMS range 3.7–11.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.52 | 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 120 beds and averages 84.0 residents a day — about 70% occupied, or roughly 36 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 3.06 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.45 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.81 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 2.62 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.23 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.54 to 0.23 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 65% is well above the national median of 45%. 5 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
17 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2026-02-06 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide 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 a resident who needed respiratory care, including tracheostomy care and tracheal suctioning, was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #1) reviewed for tracheostomy care. 1. The facility failed to ensure staff caring for Resident #1 were aware of the location of emergency equipment or how to use it in case of accidental extubation of his tracheostomy (a medical emergency where the tracheostomy tube is inadvertently removed. A tracheostomy is a surgically created opening in the neck leading into the trachea to assist with breathing, often using a tube to maintain the airway). 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 had a same-size tracheostomy at the bedside in case of accidental extubation on 1/12/26. 3. The facility failed to ensure staff caring for Resident #1 were aware 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2026-02-06 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — patternEnsure 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, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure licensed nurses had the specific competencies and skill sets to care for resident's needs, as identified through resident assessments and described in the plan of care for 4 of 8 nurses (RN A, LVN O, DON and RCS) reviewed for competency.1. The facility failed to ensure RN A and LVN O, who were assigned to care for Resident #1, were aware of the location of emergency equipment or how to use it in case of accidental extubation of his tracheostomy. 2. The facility failed to ensure the DON and RCS were aware of tracheostomy sizes and the size Resident #1 required based on his physician's order. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 2/5/26. While the IJ was removed on 2/6/26, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of pattern and a severity level of no actual harm with a potential for more than minimal harm, due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of corrective systems. These failures could…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-03-07 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible and each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents and supervision: The facility failed to supervise Resident #1 who eloped from the facility on 12/5/2024. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified as past non-compliance on 03/05/25. The non-compliance began on 12/05/24 and ended on 12/06/24. The facility had corrected the non-compliance before the investigation began on 03/04/25. This deficient practice could place at-risk for elopement residents at-risk of harm, serious injury, or death. The findings included: Record review of Resident #1's admission record, dated 11/05/24, reflected a [AGE] year-old resident with an admission date of 11/05/24, and diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease, delusions, major depressive disorder with psychotic features, and encephalopathy (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.
- Actual harm · G2025-03-07 · 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 interviews and record reviews the facility failed to provide routine and emergency drugs and biologicals to residents for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to administer Resident #2's dementia medication, Memantine 10mg twice daily (a cognitive enhancer also known as Namenda) as prescribed, as the medication was never added to her MAR until the day she was discharged . As a result of this failure, Resident #2 missed all doses of her Memantine 10mg twice daily for 47 days between 07/12/2024 through 08/27/2024. This failure could place residents at risk of not achieving the therapeutic effects intended by the physician. Findings included: Record review of Resident #2's Face Sheet dated 04/04/2025 revealed the resident was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included: Metabolic Encephalopathy (condition where brain function is impaired due to underlying metabolic disturbance) and Alzheimer's Disease (also known as…
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 · E2026-05-28 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — patternProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
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 dialysis residents received services consistent with standards of practice, comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 out of 5 residents (Resident # 2) reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to document Resident # 2 dialysis communication sheets of snack or food prior to dialysis treatment, list specific chair time of treatment and record all vitals once Resident #2 returned from treatment.The facility failed to document the monitoring of Resident # 2's daily nutrition intake for all meals, refusal of meals, as well as any meal substitutions or offers.This failure could place dialysis residents at risk of not receiving adequate care and services, lethargy, weakness, and dialysis residents with diabetes at risk for low blood sugar and or hypoglycemia resulting in decreased quality of life. Findings include: Resident # 2 Record review of Resident # 2;s admission record revealed a [AGE]…
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 · D2026-05-28 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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 review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with limited range in motion receives the treatment and services to increase range of motion, a person-centered care plan including specific interventions, equipment, frequency, duration and measurable objectives addressing hand contracture for 1 out of 5 residents (Resident # 4) reviewed for quality of care.The facility failed to ensure Resident #4's hand roll/ splint/ foam tubing was scheduled, used and monitored for left hand contracture and prevention of palm injury. The facility also failed to ensure Resident # 4 person-centered care plan addressed specific interventions with the use of equipment to address left hand contracture.This failure could place residents at risk diminished skin integrity, decreased range in motion resulting in a decreased quality of life.Findings include: Resident # 4 Record review of Resident # 4's admission record revealed an [AGE] year-old male with original admission date of 11/25/2020…
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 · D2026-02-06 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident had a right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for environmental concerns.1. The facility failed to ensure there were not dried, thick streaks of mucus covering Resident #2's dresser and the walls surrounding his dresser spanning an area of approximately 5 feet by 5 feet. 2. The facility failed to ensure there were no crayon and/or pen marks of multiple colors on the wall next to Resident #2's bed.These failures could place residents at risk of a diminished quality of life due to exposure to an environment that was unpleasant, unsanitary, and unsafe.The findings include:Record review of Resident #2's admission Record generated on 2/6/26 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, heart failure,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-07-01 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure they did not employ an individual who was found guilty of a criminal offense barring employment by a court of law for 1 of 1 (CNA A) employees reviewed for abuse and neglect.The facility did not follow their policy on abuse when they screened CNA A for hire. CNA A had worked in the facility from 2/25/2025 through 6/27/2025. This failure could place residents at risk for possible abuse, neglect or exploitation. Findings included: Record review of an undated personnel file for CNA A indicated a hire date of 2/24/2025.Further review revealed a national background check had been conducted on 2/24/2025. It revealed CNA A had an offense date of 11/29/2023 and disposition date of 1/8/2025 charged with assault causing bodily injury statute: 22.01 (A) (1) - misdemeanor sentenced to 12-month probation; a $200 fine and $297.00 court costs. Record review of CNA A's time sheets revealed she worked 14 out of 30 days in June 2025. An interview on 7/1/2025 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-03-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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, interviews and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation. 1. The facility failed to store a mop in the proper position in the utility closet. 2. The facility failed to store bowls and cups properly. 3. The facility failed to ensure the food preparation area was free of personal food and beverage items. These deficient practices could place residents who received meals and snacks from the kitchen at risk for food borne illness. The findings were: 1. Observation on 03/25/2025 at 10:58 AM revealed a soiled mop was stored head-side down in the drain compartment of a mop bucket in the utility closet. There was dirty water in the bottom of the bucket. The mop was not in use at the time of the observation. During an interview on 03/25/2025 at 11:19 AM, the regional dietary manager stated the mop should have been stored in an upright position on one of the hooks inside the utility closet to ensure it dried properly…
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 · D2025-03-28 · 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 set forth at §483.10(c)(2) and §483.10(c)(3), that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #81) whose comprehensive person-centered care plans were reviewed. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #81's diagnosis of depression was a focus area in the resident's comprehensive care plan. This deficient practice could affect residents by failing to ensure residents received appropriate care for their health conditions. The findings included: Record review of Resident #81's face sheet dated 08/21/2024 revealed the resident was a [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including: Alzheimer's disease (a progressive brain disorder that causes…
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 before2025-03-28 · 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 establish and maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment, as well as to help prevent the development of communicable diseases and infections, for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #47) reviewed for infection control. The facility did not ensure that LVN (A) followed proper infection control practices, including hand hygiene /glove changes, while checking Resident #47's blood sugar. This failure could place residents at risk of contracting disease and infection. The findings included: Record review of Resident # 47's Face sheet, dated 3/27/25, revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included Type 2 diabetes (a disorder when the body cannot use insulin correctly and sugar builds up in the blood), Hyperlipidemia (excess of lipids or fats in your blood) and Hypertension (a common condition that affects the body's arteries). 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 · D2024-07-02 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the 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 observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to immediately consult with the residents' Physician; and notify her authority, the resident' representative when there was need to alter treatment for 1 of 1 resident (Resident # 1)reviewed for notification . The facility failed to notify Resident #1's physician and Relative # 1 when Resident # 1 experienced a change of condition including low blood sugar on 6/23/2024. This failure placed residents experiencing a delay in medical treatment and worsening of condition symptoms. Findings include: Record review of Resident # 1's face sheet, dated 12/7/2021, revealed she was [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She was diagnosed with End Stage Renal Disease (a medical condition in which kidneys cease functioning on a permanent basis), Essential (Primary) Hypertension (high blood pressure), Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Hyperglycemia (high blood sugar levels), Dependence on Renal Dialysis ( someone's kidneys are no…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-01-19 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for the walk-in refrigerator in that: -The facility stored unlabeled and unsealed foods in the freezer. This failure had the potential to place residents at risk of serious complications from foodborne illness as a result of their compromised health status. Findings Included: Interview and observations on 01/17/2024 at 8:22 AM with the Dietary Manager. In freezer #1 there were unlabeled bags of what the Dietary Manager identified as diced ham, chicken fried steak, and taquitos. The Dietary Manager said the bags should be labeled. Interview on 01/18/2024 at 9:05 AM with the Dietary Manager. He said he was responsible for ensuring residents are served what they needed and what they were supposed to have. He said he was responsible for the day-to-day things like inventory, ordering, training, and interviewing patients on their preferences He said the food items must be dated with the pick sticker. The pick…
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 · D2024-01-19 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolatedDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
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 dispose of garbage and refuse properly for one waste receptacle reviewed for garbage disposal. -The waste receptacle had its top left lid opened when no one was disposing of trash. These failures could place residents at risk for exposure to germs and diseases carried by vermin and rodents. Findings include: Observation 01/17/2024 at 8:42 AM. The left lid on the outside dumpster was observed to be open. Interview on 01/18/2024 at 9:05 AM with the Dietary Manager. He said the policy on the dumpster was the lids should have been closed. He said it was difficult to close the lids and he said he would talk to the Maintenance director for something to help close the lids. He said the wind may have helped close or open the lid to the dumpster. He said he did not know who was responsible for ensuring the dumpster lid was closed. He said the risk to residents if policy were not followed was it could draw in rodents and pests, and they could then get into the building. Interview on 01/18/2024 at 11:01 AM with the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-08-16 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — patternProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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 control program designed to ensure catheter changing procedures were followed by staff in the direct care for 2 (Resident #1 and Resident #2) of 5 residents reviewed for catheter care. The facility failed to change Resident #1 and Resident #2's foley catheters when ordered. These failures could place residents at risk for infection and blocked urinary catheters. Findings: Resident #1 Record review of Resident #1's Face Sheet revealed an [AGE] year-old male who was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Unspecified Dementia (Memory Loss), Heart Failure (Loss of heart Function), Pressure Ulcer Sacral Region (Wound to Buttock), Heart Disease (Blocked Arteries in the Heart), Muscle Wasting and Atrophy (Loss of Muscles). Record review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 7 out of 15 indicating the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #1 required extensive assistance with bed…
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 · D2023-08-16 · tag F0557 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
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 promote care for residents in a manner and in an environment that maintained or enhanced each resident's respect and dignity for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for dignity. The facility failed to provide dignity and respect for Resident #1 by leaving the residents privacy bag off his foley bag exposing the full urinary bag to open doorway. This failure placed resident and could place other residents at risk for embarrassment and low self esteem. Findings: Record review of Resident #1's Face Sheet revealed an [AGE] year-old male who was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Unspecified Dementia (Memory Loss), Heart Failure (Loss of heart Function), Pressure Ulcer Sacral Region (Wound to Buttock), Heart Disease (Blocked Arteries in the Heart), Muscle Wasting and Atrophy (Loss of Muscles). Record review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 7 out of 15 indicating the resident was severely cognitively…
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 before2023-08-16 · 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 control program designed to ensure a safe, sanitary environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection for 1 of 5 staff (CNA B) observed for hand hygiene. The facility staff failed to use proper handwashing technique when assisting Resident #3. This failure could place Resident #3, other residents and staff at risk for infection. Findings: Record review of Resident #3 s Face Sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of Unspecified Dementia, Unspecified Severity, Without Behavioral Disturbance, Psychotic Disturbance, Mood Disturbance, And Anxiety (Memory Loss), Unspecified Protein Calorie Malnutrition (Lack of Nutrition), Type 2 Diabetes (High Blood Sugars), Dysphagia (Difficulty Swallowing). Record Review of residents quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 0 out of 15 indicating severely cognitively impaired.…
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
$62,125 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $53,844 — penalty dated 2026-02-06
- $8,281 — penalty dated 2025-03-07
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 | 1 of 5 | 2.7 | -1.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.9 | -1.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.6 | -0.6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CITIZENS MEDICAL CENTER COUNTY OF VICTORIA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 03/01/2014 |
| REGENCY IHS OF WHARTON LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2014 |
| CSV RHEA MANAGEMENT HOLDCO, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 03/01/2014 |
| DWD TX HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 03/01/2014 |
| JACK AND NANCY DWYER WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT CENTER INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 03/01/2014 |
| REG HG OPCO 1, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 03/01/2014 |
| REG HG OPCO LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 03/01/2014 |
| REG OPERATOR HOLDCO LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 03/01/2014 |
| REGENCY TEXAS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 03/01/2014 |
| BAIRD, DANIEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 04/13/2021 |
| CARVAJAL, ANTONIO | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 05/16/2024 |
| CLAPP, BARBARA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 06/01/2021 |
| CORTESE, DAREN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 08/10/2021 |
| GALVIN, BEN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 06/16/2014 |
| GIBSON, PATRICIA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 08/01/2021 |
| GONZALES, VERONICA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 05/16/2024 |
| GOROUHI, FARIBORZ | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 07/01/2023 |
| GUERRA, LUIS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/01/2009 |
| HOLM, PAUL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/01/2007 |
| KAUFMAN, NICOLE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 08/10/2021 |
| MANDELBAUM, ELLIOT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| MARSHALL, RUSSELL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 04/23/2014 |
| NEUMANN, JAMES | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 05/31/2016 |
| OLSON, MICHAEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/12/2015 |
| THOMAS, ASHLIE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 07/01/2023 |
| REGENCY INTEGRATED HEALTH SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2014 |
| DEKOWSKI, DONOVAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2014 |
| DOZIER, MARSHELDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/21/2025 |
| 1220 SUNNY LANE LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2014 |
| REGENCY IHS CLINICAL CONSULTING, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2014 |
| REGENCY IHS MASTER TENANT LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2014 |
| REGENCY IHS REHAB LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2014 |
| CAPOCYAN, OWEN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| COX, KRYSTAL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 42 rows in the source record cover these 34 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 81% 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
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 675361. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-28, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.