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

Buena Vista Healthcare

151 Buena Vista Drive, Colville, WA 99114 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 40 certified beds · (509) 684-4539 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (509) 684-4539 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
3 actual-harm citations$13,104 in federal fines
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has 3 actual-harm citations
  • 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 $13,104 in federal fines (most recent 2024-04-12)

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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
982 E Columbia Ave · (509) 684-2561 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1250 North Highway # 395 · (509) 684-3151 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
1250 N Highway 395 Colville, WA 99114
Park
137 E 7th Ave · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 4 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 held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

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

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased16.8%14.2%15.4%typical
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight11.8%5.5%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%1.0%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection3.1%1.6%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms21.2%17.7%6.5%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury1.9%2.6%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened28.2%17.2%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication4.0%12.4%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine66.7%93.8%95.3%worse
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers13.4%4.3%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control20.4%22.5%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table9.0%15.1%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.7%1.3%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine40.4%82.0%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission10.5%19.9%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit20.1%13.4%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days0.461.331.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.431.521.80better

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.

52.8% 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 131 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

52.8%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
8.9%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
42.0%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.28U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.16hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.10hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.02hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 42.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 81 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 43% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

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

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF52.8%CMS range 44.8–61.151.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF8.9%CMS range 6.1–14.310.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge42.0%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge40.7%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge34.6%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay2.1%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened1.1%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization5.6%CMS range 2.9–10.77.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.951.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

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

Staffing

0.80
RN hours/ resident / day
0.73
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.75
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.28
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.42
RN hoursweekends
43.5%
Total nursing turnover
42.9%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 40 beds and averages 35.3 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 4.28 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.80 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.75 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.77 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.48 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.96 to 0.42 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

6
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-02-14)
11
at the previous standard inspection (2024-04-12)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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

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

  • Actual harm · G2024-04-12 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    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 implement interventions to prevent pressure ulcer/injuries for 1 of 3 sampled residents (8). Resident 8 experienced harm when they developed avoidable pressure ulcers.This failure placed other residents at risk for development of pressure ulcers, medical complications, and unmet care needs. Findings included . <Resident 8> Review of the facility's policy titled Skin Integrity updated October 2022, documented if a resident admitted with or developed a skin ulcer/pressure ulcer/wound, care would be provided to treat, heal, and prevent, if possible further development of skin ulcers/pressure ulcers/wounds. Review of the annual assessment, dated 02/16/2024, showed Resident 8 had diagnoses which included dementia, contractures (a permanent tightening of the muscles, tendons, skin, and nearby tissues that caused joints to shorten and become very stiff) to the left and right knees and a contracture to the right ankle. The assessment documented Resident 8 was identified as being at risk of developing pressure ulcers…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Actual harm · G2024-04-12 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to consistently implement effective preventative measures for falls, by evaluating the effectiveness of current interventions and the need for increased supervision for 4 of 4 sampled residents (Residents 31, 33, 36, and 51), reviewed for accidents. Resident 51 experienced harm when they sustained a hip fracture requiring hospital treatment and Resident 36 experienced a pattern of frequent falls. These failures placed residents at risk for repeat falls, major injury, and diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of the facility titled Fall Evaluation and Management dated 02/2000, showed the facility was to implement a fall management plan based on the resident's medical history and resident evaluation. The policy instructed nurses to complete a Morse fall scale (assessment that scored a residents fall risk) assessment upon admission, with each fall, and with a significant change in condition. A score greater than 45, identified the resident 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Actual harm · G2024-04-12 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
    Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record reviewthe facility failed to provide cueing and meal assistance, monitor for significant weight loss, and risk of skin integrity for nutrition for 1 of 1 sampled residents (29). The resident experienced harm when they had an unplanned severe weight loss, nutritional decline, and breakdown of skin integrity with wound development. This failure placed other residents at risk for unplanned weight loss, medical complications, and unmet care needs. Findings icluded . <Resident 29> Review of the 03/25/2024 significant change assessment, showed Resident 29 had diagnoses which included stroke, anemia, and ataxia (impaired coordination). The assessment also documented Resident 29 had moderate cognitive impairments, required partial to moderate assistance from staff with eating, had experienced significant weight loss, and was at risk for developing pressure ulcers. Review of skin care plan, the 01/25/2024, showed Resident 29 was at risk for skin breakdown related to…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-02-14 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — pattern
    Keep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
    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 immediate environment of 5 of 6 sampled residents (Residents 18, 16, 24, 3, and 21) reviewed for environment, was free from visible clinical information prior to assessing if it violated the resident's privacy. Findings included . <Resident 16> An observation and interview in Resident 16's room on 02/11/2025 at 09:09 AM showed signage on the overhead light that read, 2 per FWW [ a walker], Do not bend more than 90 degrees, and Please float right heel. Additionally observed was a laminated sign on the wall and under the overhead light for posterior hip precautions. Review of a 01/27/2025 admission assessment showed the staff assessed Resident 16's cognition was intact. Resident 16 had a roommate. When asked about knowledge of the signage with care directives, Resident 16 stated, I don't know what they are. I can't read them anyway. I don't know what they say. <Resident 24> An observation and interview in Resident 24's room on…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-14 · tag F0622 — isolated
    Not transfer or discharge a resident without an adequate reason; and must provide documentation and convey specific information when a resident is transferred or discharged.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to identify what information was conveyed to the hospital at the time of transfer for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Residents 16 and 24) reviewed for hospitalizations. This failure placed the residents at risk for a disruptive and ineffective transition from the facility to the hospital setting. Findings included . <Resident 16> Review of a 01/17/2025 progress note showed Resident 16 experienced a change in condition which required a transfer to the hospital. Review of the medical record showed no documentation the facility communicated to the hospital basic information of the resident's status necessary for a safe transition of care, such as contact information for their provider, family or representative, code status, advanced directives, plan of care and treatment, current medications and the reason for the hospital transfer, as required. <Resident 24> Review of a 6/10/2024 progress note showed Resident 24 experienced a change in condition which required a transfer to the hospital. Review of the medical record showed 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-14 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop the care plans for 2 of 12 sampled residents (Residents 16 and 24) whose care plans were reviewed. This failure placed the residents at risk for inadequate care and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . <Resident 16> Observations on 02/11/2025 at 8:55 AM, 02/12/2025 at 8:49 AM, 11:18 AM, and 2:47 PM, and 02/13/2025 at 8:32 AM, showed Resident 16 had an abductor wedge between their legs. An abductor wedge helped to stabilize the hip joint after hip surgery and reduced this risk of the hip joint dislocating. Review of Resident 16's care plan and February 2025 Treatment Administration Record showed no directions to the staff for the use of the abductor wedge. The above information was shared with Staff C, Minimum Data Set Coordinator/Registered Nurse (RN) on 02/13/2025 at 11:46 AM. Staff C acknowledged Resident 16's care plan did not include the direction to the staff to use the abductor wedge and stated, It should include…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-14 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    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 provide grooming for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 35), reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). This failure placed the resident at risk for poor personal hygiene and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . According to the 01/23/2025 Baseline care plan, Resident 35 required assistance from staff to complete ADLs such as personal hygiene, dressing, and grooming. Observations of Resident 35 were made while they were sitting in their wheelchair in their room and during group activities with the same clothes on, long facial hair and long jagged fingernails, were made on 02/11/2025 at 09:32 AM, 02/12/2025 at 09:51 AM, and 02/13/2025 at 08:56 AM and again at 02/13/2025 at 01:24 PM In an interview on 02/12/2025 at 09:51 AM, Resident 35 stated they had been in the same clothes for three or four days, since their shower on 02/09/2025. They further stated that the clothes belonged to the facility because their clothes were being laundered at the time of their shower. Resident 35 said their…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-14 · tag F0685 — isolated
    Assist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to coordinate hearing services for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident 24) reviewed for communication. This failure placed the resident at risk for unmet needs and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of a nursing admission evaluation showed Resident 24 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The evaluation showed the staff assessed Resident 24 was hard of hearing in both ears. An observation on 02/10/2025 at 3:06 PM showed Resident 24 in bed. Resident 24 had difficulty hearing and answered written questions. A Caption Telephone (CapTel) was on the bedside table to the resident's right side. The CapTel transcribed what the caller said into written words. Captions can be read if the resident cannot hear what the caller was saying over the telephone. An observation on 02/11/2025 at 11:15 AM showed Staff E, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), preparing medications to administer to Resident 24. Staff E stated that they when they had…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-14 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolated
    Procure 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety when staff were observed serving food without using appropriate hand hygiene for 1 of 3 dining observations. Staff were also observed carrying cups with bare hands touching the rims of drinking surfaces. This failure increased the resident's risk for food borne illness. Findings included . Review of the facility's policy titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, dated May 2015, showed use of an alcohol-based hand rub before and after direct contact with residents, before and after handling food and before and after assisting a resident with meals. During the lunch time dining observation on 02/10/2025 at 11:18 AM, staff J, Nursing Assistant, was observed bringing residents into the dining room, moving in and out of the kitchen without performing hand hygiene. Staff J was also observed serving beverages with bare hand contact touching the rim of the cups without performing…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-04-12 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — pattern
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review the facility failed to implement bowel management protocol when indicated for 2 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 26 and 31), reviewed for constipation. In addition, the facility failed to monitor and implement interventions for edema (swelling) management for 1 of 3 sampled residents (31), reviewed for edema. These failures placed residents at risk for complications, worsening conditions, and diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of the facility policy titled, Bowel Protocol, revised 03/2018, documented nursing staff was to review a resident's bowel monitor daily. The policy instructed nursing staff to implement the bowel program if a resident did not have a bowel movement (BM) for three days. The policy showed nursing staff was to administer Milk of Magnesia (MOM) on day four, a laxative suppository was to be administered the next shift if no results from MOM, an enema was to be administered the next shift if no results from the suppository, and the provider was to be notified if there were no results from the enema. Bowel…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-04-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure staff followed enhanced barrier precautions, cleaned mechanical lifts after usage, and performed hand hygiene when indicated during the meal service and wound care. These failures placed residents at risk of transmission of communicable diseases and/or healthcare associated diseases, and diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of the facility policy titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene revised 03/2018, showed hand hygiene was the facilities primary means to prevent the spread of infections. The policy instructed staff to perform hand hygiene with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water before and after direct contact with residents; before performing any non-surgical invasive procedure; before and after handling an invasive device; before handling clean or soiled dressings, before moving from a contaminated body site to a clean body site during resident care; after contact with object in the immediate vicinity of 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-04-12 · tag F0554 — isolated
    Allow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
    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 assess and care plan for safe self-medication administration for 1of 1 sampled residents (Resident 28), reviewed for medication administration. This failure placed residents at risk of medication errors, adverse side effects, and diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of the facility policy titled, Self-Administration of Medication revised 09/2017, documented if a resident desired to self-administer medications the facility would complete a self-medication evaluation before the resident was able to self-administer medications. The assessment would be reviewed quarterly or upon a change of condition. The policy instructed nursing staff to obtain a provider order for self-administration for the specific medications, initiate a self-medication administration care plan, initiate a bedside self-medication administration record, determine whether medication would be stored at the nursing station or at bedside, and obtain and initiate proper safety mechanisms if medications were to be stored at 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-04-12 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
    Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
    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 provide assistive cups as care planned for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 17) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL's). This failure placed the resident at risk for continued swallowing difficulties and decreased fluid intake. Findings included . A review of the 03/04/2024 comprehensive admission assessment documented Resident 17 had diagnoses which included kidney stones and an enlarged prostate. The resident had moderate cognitive impairment and required set-up/clean-up assistance for eating. Resident 17 had loss of food from their mouth when eating and held food in their mouth or cheeks after eating. The baseline care plan dated 02/27/2024 showed Resident 17 required set-up/clean-up assistance for eating and was to use a sippy cup (has a spout and two handles to aid drinking and prevent spillage) for all liquids and could also use a straw. The nutritional care plan documented Resident 17 was to have aspiration precautions (interventions that prevented inhaling foods and drinks when eating such 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-12 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure nail care was provided for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 17 and 29) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). Specifically, two residents used their fingers to help scoop food onto their eating utensils and to pick up food from their plates and their nails had dark matter under them. This failure placed the residents at risk of contracting bacterial and diarrheal illnesses. Findings included . <Resident 17> A 03/04/2024 comprehensive admission assessment documented Resident 17 had diagnoses including spinal stenosis (narrowing of the spaces in the bones that can put pressure on the spinal cord) and enlarged prostate requiring indwelling urinary catheter. Resident 17 was moderately impaired cognitively, required set-up/clean-up assistance for eating and personal hygiene and lost food from their mouth when eating and drinking. The care plan dated 02/27/2024 instructed staff to provide set-up/clean-up assistance to the resident for eating and personal hygiene, keep fingernails short to protect…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-04-12 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure oxygen delivery equipment was maintained in a clean manner for 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident 26) reviewed for respiratory care. These failures placed the residents at risk for respiratory complications and infection. Findings included . Per the 02/15/2024 quarterly assessment, Resident 26 had diagnoses which included pericardial effusion (the buildup of extra fluid in the space around the heart), sleep apnea (a potentially serious sleep disorder in which breathing repeatedly stops and starts) and needed oxygen due to those conditions. Review of the physician orders documented on 08/15/2023, the resident had been prescribed oxygen to be used as needed to maintain oxygen saturations greater than 90 percent, due to the diagnoses listed above. The orders also documented to change the filter monthly and to change the oxygen tubing as needed if damaged or unable to have been cleaned. Review of Resident 26's care plan found there was no respiratory care plan in place to instruct staff what the resident's…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-04-12 · tag F0801 — isolated
    Employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure dietary staff had the proper qualifications. Failure to ensure the dietary manager had the proper certification placed all residents at risk for nutritional deficits, unmet nutritional needs, and diminshed quality of life. Findings included In an interview on [DATE] at 1:32 PM, Staff Q, Dietary Manager, stated their license had expired and they were in the process of getting certified as a dietary manager. On [DATE] at 9:32 AM, Staff A, Administrator, confirmed the Dietary Manager for the facility was not certified as a dietary manager. Reference (WAC) 388-97-1160 (1)

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolated
    Procure 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 and interview, the facility failed to maintain appropriate dishwasher temperatures, date and dispose of expired foods and failed to prepare food in a sanitary manner. These failures placed the residents at risk for food borne illnesses and decreased quality of life. Findings included . <Dishwasher temperatures> During an observation of the kitchen on 04/11/2024 at 12:42, Staff Q, Dietary Manager, stated the dishwasher was a low temperature dishwasher, which must sanitize the dishes at 120 degrees or above. Staff Q stated that maintenance was informed each time the dishwasher was below 120 degrees, and the temperature was fixed. Staff Q was unable to provide documentation showing the temperature had been fixed and what the new temperature was afterward, and the maintenance person was on vacation. During an observation on 04/11/2024 at 12:50 PM, Staff R, Dietary Aide, had ran two loads of trays though the dishwasher and the trays reached a temperature of 117 degrees, not 120 degrees as required. Staff R had put those trays away and continued washing the next load.…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

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

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

Fines & penalties

$13,104 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $13,104 — penalty dated 2024-04-12

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 EVERGREEN HEALTHCARE GROUP — 44 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 52.5+1.5 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.4+1.6 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 53.3+0.7 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 53.0+1.0 vs chain
The other 43 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.5★, per CMS)
1 of 5Alaska Gardens Health and RehabilitationTacoma, WA 1 of 5El Jen Skilled CareLas Vegas, NV 1 of 5Firesteel Healthcare CenterMitchell, SD 1 of 5Gardnerville Health & Rehabilitation CenterGardnerville, NV 1 of 5Laurel Health & Rehabilitation CenterLaurel, MT 1 of 5Livingston Health & Rehabilitation CenterLivingston, MT 1 of 5Palisade Healthcare CenterGarretson, SD 1 of 5Portland Health And RehabilitationPortland, OR 1 of 5Riverview Healthcare CenterFlandreau, SD 1 of 5Shepherd of the Valley Rehabilitation and WellnessCasper, WY 1 of 5Worland Health and RehabilitationWorland, WY 2 of 5Aspen Meadows Health And Rehabilitation CenterBillings, MT 2 of 5Canterbury HouseAuburn, WA 2 of 5Enumclaw Health and RehabilitationEnumclaw, WA 2 of 5Granite Rehabilitation and WellnessCheyenne, WY 2 of 5Independence Health And RehabilitationIndependence, OR 2 of 5Laramie Health and RehabilitationLaramie, WY 2 of 5Mountain View Health And RehabilitationCarson City, NV 2 of 5North Cascades Health and RehabilitationBellingham, WA 2 of 5Seattle Medical Post Acute CareSeattle, WA 2 of 5Shelton Health and RehabilitationShelton, WA 2 of 5Village Health CareGresham, OR 2 of 5Wind River Rehabilitation and WellnessRiverton, WY 3 of 5Fountain Springs HealthcareRapid City, SD 3 of 5La Grande Post Acute RehabLa Grande, OR 3 of 5Pahrump Health And RehabilitationPahrump, NV 3 of 5Prairie View Healthcare CenterWoonsocket, SD 3 of 5Rawlins Rehabilitation and WellnessRawlins, WY 3 of 5Royal Park Health and RehabilitationSpokane, WA 3 of 5Sage View Care CenterRock Springs, WY 3 of 5Thermopolis Rehabilitation and WellnessThermopolis, WY 3 of 5Wheatcrest Hills Healthcare CenterBritton, SD 3 of 5Windsor Health And RehabilitationSalem, OR 4 of 5Americana Health and RehabilitationLongview, WA 4 of 5Frontier Rehabilitation and Extended CareLongview, WA 4 of 5Hillsboro Health And RehabilitationHillsboro, OR 4 of 5Hot Springs Health & Rehabilitation CenterHot Springs, MT 4 of 5Missoula Health & Rehabilitation CenterMissoula, MT 4 of 5Polson Health & Rehabilitation CenterPolson, MT 4 of 5The Dalles Health And RehabilitationThe Dalles, OR

Showing 40 of 43; 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 / managerTypeRoleSince
CURRY, DANIELLEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/31/2023
ODENTHAL, JASONIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/31/2023
SPIELMAN, SHIMONIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/31/2023
YENOWITZ, YITZCHOKIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/31/2023
BUENA VISTA SNF OPERATIONS, LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/28/2025
COUVE FINANCIAL SERVICES LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/24/2025
COUVE HEALTHCARE CONSULTING LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/28/2025
PNW 12 OPCO MANAGEMENT LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/28/2025
PNW 12 SNF CONSULTING LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/28/2025
ARNOLD, RENEEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/31/2023
ARTZIS, SAMUELIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/31/2023
LUU, TYSONIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/31/2023

CMS files one row per role, so the 30 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

5 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.

$4.1M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+4.1%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$117K
Related-party expense3% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 29%Medicare 12%Other / private 58%

This home reported $117K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

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

Cost & finances

$254per resident / day
operating cost
$7,714per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$265per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

What families pay in WA

Paying with Medicaid

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

Typical monthly cost in Washington
$13,155/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$15,969/mo
Nursing home (private)
$7,600/mo
Assisted living

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

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 505329. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-02-14, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

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

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

What to do next