Water's Edge
11040 North State Rd 77, Hayward, WI 54843 · Non profit - Corporation · 50 certified beds · (715) 934-4300 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 improved from 4 to 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 | 28.3% | 16.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 10.0% | 5.1% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 2.1% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 7.1% | 2.7% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 6.7% | 5.7% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.9% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.0% | 18.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.8% | 16.9% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.9% | 5.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.1% | 24.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.2% | 15.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 16.0% | 23.1% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.6% | 15.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.03 | 1.66 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.56 | 2.29 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
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.
36.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 33 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 28.6% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 21 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 0.09 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 5% 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
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 36.2%CMS range 24.2–49.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.1%CMS range 5.7–13.5 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 28.6% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 9.5% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 23.8% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 4.2% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.7%CMS range 3.2–13.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.60 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 50 beds and averages 36.2 residents a day — about 72% occupied, or roughly 14 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.50 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.07 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.15 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 4.03 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.69 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.24 to 0.65 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% is about the same as 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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-08-08 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility did not ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 2 of 3 residents (R) (R1 and R2) reviewed.The facility did not ensure R2's bed alarm was functioning to alert staff of self-transfer resulting in R2 falling and sustaining an acute fracture involving the left orbital roof, opacified left frontal sinus consistent with fracture involving its lateral wall, and a left nasal fracture. This example is being cited at actual harm.The facility did not ensure that R1 was transferred with assist of 2 and correct sling causing R1 to fall to the floor. Findings:The facility policy titled Plan for the Provision of Nursing Care, undated, states in part under the section Staffing: .E. Nursing assistance provide assistance and care to residents according to the plan of care. The facility policy titled Falls Management Program: Accident Prevention & Investigation, undated, states: It is the mission of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-05-14 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. The facility did not describe the building water systems using text and flow diagrams. This has the potential to affect all 37 residents in the facility. Findings include: Surveyor's record review of the facility's water management plan revealed a description of some areas where water was stagnated, and a record of weekly flushing of facility's stagnate water, but no text and flow diagrams were found with hotspots indicating potential hazards on the diagram. On 05/14/25 at 9:09 AM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A and Chief Operating Officer (COO) E regarding the lack of a text and flow diagram. NHA A and COO E stated they would attempt to locate the text and flow diagram, as their head of maintenance was unavailable. A flow chart was located with points of concerns noted, but…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-14 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
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 ensure 1 of 1 resident ((R)8) who are trauma survivors receive culturally competent, trauma-informed care in accordance with professional standards of practice and accounting for resident's experiences and preferences to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the resident. R8 expressed he had lost his son in a tragic car accident which at certain times of the year it is very difficult. The facility did not assess R8 for trauma informed care. R8's care plan did not identify potential triggers in attempts to mitigate re-traumatization. Findings Include: On [DATE] at 1:21 PM, Surveyor requested and received the facility policy titled Trauma-Informed Care dated [DATE]. The policy in part read: Purpose: The facility must ensure that residents who are trauma survivors receive culturally competent, trauma-informed care in accordance with professional standards of practice and accounting for residents' experiences and preferences in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-04-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide 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 establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. This had the potential to affect all 40 residents (R). The facility did not complete surveillance for the time of onset of symptoms for COVID-19 symptomatic staff. Findings include: Surveyor requested and reviewed the facility procedure titled House Supervisor and Leader Guidance for Ill Employee Calls dated 02/19/24. The procedure in part reads: .What should House Supervisors initially do when a phone call from an ill employee calls? Questions to ask include, but are not limited to: -When did employee symptoms start? What symptoms is the employee having? - Has the employee had any exposure to anyone else that is ill? -Has the employee had a known COVID-19 exposure? Surveyor reviewed Infection Control (IC) surveillance logs and found the facility identified the facility had an outbreak of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-04-05 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility did not provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for falls (R27). Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) C and D left R27 unattended in bed with her bed in a high position and no mat on the floor during cares, when R27's care plan directs a low bed and mat on the floor. This is evidenced by: Surveyor reviewed R27's most recent Minimum Data Assessment (MDS) which was a quarterly dated 3/07/23. The MDS notes R27 is rarely understood, sometimes understands and is severely cognitively impaired. R27 has other behaviors of hitting or scratching self. R27 requires extensive assistance of one staff for bed mobility, dressing, eating and bathing. She is dependent on staff for transfer. R27 is always incontinent of bladder and bowel. R27's diagnoses included renal insufficiency, Alzheimer's disease and depression. R27 did not experience falls during this assessment review period. R27 takes an antipsychotic and antidepressant…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| REGIONAL ENTERPRISES INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 03/27/2025 |
| BEIRL, LUKE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/11/2018 |
| DUNLAP, SABRINA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/01/2025 |
| ECKES, KYLAH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2023 |
| GARDNER, KATRINA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/01/2025 |
| GARRETT, JOHN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2016 |
| HOBAN, RICHARD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2020 |
| IVERSON, CHRISTINE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/01/2025 |
| JOKINEN, THOMAS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/01/2025 |
| KUCHINKA, SAM | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/01/2025 |
| MIKULA, DANI | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/01/2025 |
| PEARSON, TAYLOR | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/01/2025 |
| SCHRAUFNAGEL, PATRICIA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/01/2025 |
| SETZKE, RICHARD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/01/2025 |
| SIGNORELLI, JOSEPH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/01/2025 |
| THOMPSON, DODSON | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2022 |
| TUMAS, AISTIS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/01/2025 |
| WICKMAN, TYLER | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/01/2025 |
| DUMONSEAU, KENT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/19/2013 |
| LEADINGCHOICE NETWORK LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/15/2025 |
| BOWMAN, ALAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/07/2025 |
| COURTRIGHT, MARTHA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/11/2022 |
| HELENIUS, HILARY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/06/2025 |
| HENCK, ANNA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/19/2026 |
| KELLER, JOY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/18/2022 |
| LINDSAY, AINDREA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/26/2018 |
| MAANUM, SCOTT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/08/2011 |
| MANNING, AMANDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/22/2022 |
| MILLER, DEBRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/15/1989 |
| PIECUCH, DEBRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/29/2018 |
| SHEEHAN, HEATHER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/27/2007 |
| SKAR, ANNA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/04/2018 |
| STANGRET, AMANDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/09/2019 |
| THRASHER, MICHELLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/18/2012 |
| WEGENER, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2021 |
| ACTUALMEDS CORPORATION | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2015 |
| AMERGIS HEALTHCARE STAFFING, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| FRANDSEN BANK AND TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2020 |
| HEALTH DIMENSIONS CONSULTING INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/14/2025 |
| MEDICAL SOLUTIONS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 77 rows in the source record cover these 40 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
7 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.
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 525632. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-14, 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.