Dove Healthcare - Regional Vent Center
2815 County Highway I, Chippewa Falls, WI 54729 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 50 certified beds · (715) 723-9341 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (36% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $68,402 in federal fines (most recent 2025-02-13)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 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 | 22.7% | 16.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 5.1% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 9.5% | 2.1% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.7% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.8% | 5.7% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 3.3% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 47.2% | 16.9% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 86.7% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 12.7% | 5.0% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 35.1% | 24.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.2% | 15.8% | 17.1% | 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.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 50 beds and averages 28.6 residents a day — about 57% occupied, or roughly 21 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 9.32 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 3.16 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 5.69 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.
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-03-18 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility did not ensure 3 of 3 residents (R) reviewed, (R1, R2, and R3) who required oxygen with ventilator (Vent) and respiratory care were provided such services consistent with professional standards of practice, the resident's comprehensive person-centered care plan, and physician orders on the ventilator unit. R1 is ventilator dependent and requires oxygen continuously via the ventilator to maintain oxygen levels above 90% saturation. On [DATE], when R1 was put to bed, staff did not connect R1 to the stationary liquid oxygen tank, but left R1 connected to a portable oxygen tank that runs out of oxygen within 3-4 hours. Respiratory Therapist (RT) skipped ventilator spot checks for R1 at 2:00 AM on [DATE]. R1 was found at 6:00 AM on [DATE] with low saturations, no pulse, and died. The facility's failure to ensure R1 had oxygen supply during the night of [DATE] and respiratory therapy check at 2:00 AM, created a reasonable likelihood for serious harm and death…
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 · E2026-04-15 · tag F0628 — patternProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility did not notify the Ombudsman of residents who were transferred from the facility to a hospital for 5 of 5 residents (R) (R4, R7, R20, R31, R33).The facility was unable to locate a policy pertaining to ombudsman notification for transfers. Example 1 (R7) On 02/27/2026, R7 had a change in condition and was transferred to the hospital. On 04/15/2026 at 10:03 AM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A who stated he was unable to find documentation that the Ombudsman was notified of resident transfers and/or discharges. NHA A stated the staff member responsible for Ombudsman notification left in September of 2025 and NHA A was unable to locate the notifications to the Ombudsman requested. Example 2 R31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including respiratory failure, dependency on ventilator, and renal insufficiency/failure. Surveyor reviewed R31's medical record noting on 8/12/25, 12/24/25, 1/30/26, 3/18/26, and 4/3/26, R31 was…
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 before2026-04-15 · 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 and interviews, the facility did not ensure the safety of food handling in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This had the potential to affect all 13 of the 29 residents that eat orally.-Cook did not check the temperature of the fried eggs prior to serving.-Personal food was stored in the resident's refrigerator-Food was dished up in bowls with no label or date on dish or tray.-Cereal was not covered prior to leaving kitchen and going to resident's room.-Rectangular baking pans were on bottom shelf not enclosed, not covered, or inverted. -An open bag of macaroni was on kitchen shelf without an open on or use by date.Findings include:The facility's policy titled, Record of Food Temperatures reviewed on March 2024, states, Food temperatures will be checked on all items prepared in the dietary department. The facility's policy titled, Date Marking for Food Safety reviewed on 9/26/24, states, . 2. The food shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the food shall be consumed or discarded. 3. The individual opening or…
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 · D2026-04-15 · 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 interview and record review, the facility did not immediately consult with the resident's physician when there is need to alter treatment for 2 of 5 residents (R4 and R13) reviewed for MD notification. -R4 began to have difficulty with nebulizer treatments with increased dyspnea and shortness of breath which were then held by nursing staff and not administered as physician orders specify. Staff did not notify the provider with condition change and holding of the nebulizer treatments for 2 days.-R13 had a change of condition with low oxygen saturations, and the MD was not notified of the change in respiratory status and low oxygen saturations. The next day R13 was transferred to the emergency room and was diagnosed with pneumonia. Findings include: Surveyor reviewed facility policy titled, Resident Change in Condition, last reviewed 08/25, which states, .RN notification: 1. LPN's RTs, medication aides, and other unlicensed personnel must report to the RN in charge of the resident's care, all residents…
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 · D2026-04-15 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility did not provide the accurate Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN) thus did not provide the accurate potential financial liability to residents whose Medicare coverage ended for 1 of 1 resident reviewed (R7).R7 was receiving Medicare A benefits. R7's Medicare coverage ended on 12/12/25. R7 was not provided with a SNFABN form thus not provided with accurate financial liability. Evidenced by: Surveyor reviewed R7's beneficiary notices for Medicare Part A services ending. Surveyor could not find that a SNFABN Form was given to R7 to inform R7 of the financial liability. On 04/14/26 at 1:13 pm, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A and asked for beneficiary notices for R7 when R7's Medicare benefits were ending. NHA A stated to Surveyor that NHA A admits to not giving R7 a SNFABN form when R7's benefits were about to end. NHA A reported that the person in charge of making sure beneficiaries are completed has not worked since September of 2025, so this SNFABN form was missed for R7.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-15 · 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 did not develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for the diagnosis of fluid overload and new anticoagulation medication administration post hospitalization for 1 of 16 residents (R) R4 reviewed for care plans.This is evidenced by: R4 was admitted to facility on 01/30/26, with diagnoses including, in part, acute chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia, acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic nephropathy, fusion of spine, post-polio syndrome, insomnia, hyperkalemia, scoliosis, anxiety disorder, gastrostomy status, tracheostomy, and dependence on respirator ventilator status. Surveyor reviewed R4's physician orders, which state, .-Apixaban 2.5 mg give 1 tablet via G-Tube two times a day for Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) based on age greater than 80 and weight less than 60kg.-Side effect: Anticoagulant-Monitor for side effects: Blood in urine/stool, black stool,…
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 · D2026-04-15 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 did not review/revise the resident's person-centered comprehensive care plan for 1 resident (R13) of 16 residents reviewed for care plans in a sample of 16 residents. The facility's interdisciplinary team (IDT) did not update/revise R13's care plan after each quarterly or comprehensive review assessments to reflect R13's refusals of using the ventilator at night and noncompliance to fluid restrictions, resulting in a possible decline in R13's physical health and hospitalization.Findings include:The facility policy, titled Care Plan Revisions Upon Status Change, last revised 05/05/2025, states, The comprehensive care plan will be reviewed, and revised as necessary, when a resident experiences a status change.R13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses that include dependance on ventilator due to chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (low oxygen levels) and hypercapnia (high carbon dioxide levels), chronic obstructive pulmonary…
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 before2025-02-13 · 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 and interview, the facility did not ensure proper sanitation and food handling practices to prevent the outbreak of foodborne illness by having a separate hand washing sink separate from those used for food preparation for 11 residents (R) (R4, R5, R8, R9, R12, R24, R17, R18, R19, R20, R27). Findings: Per the FDA Code: Food Employees shall clean their hands in a handwashing sink or approved automatic handwashing facility and may not clean their hands in a sink used for FOOD preparation or warewashing. On 02/12/25 at 11:39 AM, Surveyor observed [NAME] C wash hands in a single sink in the dinette kitchen and began to serve 11 lunch meal trays. On 02/12/25 at 11:48 AM, Surveyor observed [NAME] D enter dinette kitchen during meal service, wash hands in a single sink, wash cucumbers in same sink, then peel and slice cucumbers for another meal at a prep table. On 02/13/25 at 10:12 AM, Surveyor interviewed [NAME] D and [NAME] E regarding the single sink in the dinette kitchen where food preparation, dishwashing and hand hygiene is conducted. [NAME] D and [NAME] E both…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 3 of 4 residents (R). (R3, R4, R5) Staff did not complete appropriate glove change and hand hygiene when providing personal cares for R3. Catheter bags were placed directly on the floor. This is evidenced by: The facility's policy titled Hand Hygiene with the last review date of 06/24, read in part, .2. g. Decontaminate hands if moving from a contaminated-body site to a clean-body site during resident care. h. Decontaminate hands after contact with inanimate objects (including medical equipment) in the immediate vicinity of the resident. i. Decontaminate hands after removing gloves .7. e. Change gloves and perform appropriate hand hygiene during resident care if moving from a contaminated-body site to a clean-body site. On 11/04/24 at 9:10 a.m., Surveyor observed Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) D and CNA C provide personal cares for R3. CNA D sanitized…
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
$68,402 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $68,402 — penalty dated 2025-02-13
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 DOVE HEALTHCARE — 11 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 | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 3.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
The other 10 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DOVE 8 OPCO HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 01/01/2024 |
| DIVINE HC HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2024 |
| GOLDSTAR CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2024 |
| GOLDSTAR WISCONSIN ASSOCIATES, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2024 |
| GOLDSTAR-DIVINE HOLDINGS DOVE 8 LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2024 |
| MARKOVITS, ISAAK | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2024 |
| RICHLAND, ILAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2024 |
| DETTBARN, KYLE | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| YOUNG, CAYCI | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| GOLDNER, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| KILEY, JEREMY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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.
About 75% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $831K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in WI
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 Wisconsin 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 525379. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-15, 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.