Hilltop Center

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

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.

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.

47.6% 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 124 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 63.4% 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 101 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 0.57 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 87% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

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

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 117.3 residents a day — about 98% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.24 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.66 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.65 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.61 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.50 on weekdays — 25% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.81 to 0.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 32% is below 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

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.

30 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 18 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · G2025-05-13 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
  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 interview the facility failed to ensure one (1) of two (2) residents reivewed for pressure ulcers were not neglected. Resident #1 entered the facility without a pressure ulcer. He was discharged to another facility (nursing home). An assessment completed within 40 minutes after his discharge from the facility revealed a deep foul smelling wound to the coccyx. Resident #1 sustained actual harm. Resident identifier: #1. Facility Census: 118 Findings Include: a) Resident #1 Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from a critical illness recovery hospital. He had been at that facility from 01/22/25 - 02/18/25. He had previously been at another acute care hospital from [DATE] - 01/22/25. He was sent to the acute care hospital on [DATE] after his percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube malfunctioned. While hospitalized he had two (2) surgeries and left the hospital on [DATE] with a surgical wound to the left and right abdomen. Due to postoperative complications a wound vac…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Actual harm · G2025-05-13 · 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure one (1) of two (2) residents reivewed for pressure ulcers received the apprpirate care to treat a wound to the coccyx. Resident #1 entered the facility without a pressure ulcer to the coccyx . He was discharged to another facility (nursing home). An assessment completed within 40 minutes after his discharge from the facility revealed a deep foul smelling wound to the coccyx. Resident #1 sustained actual harm. Resident identifier: #1. Facility Census: 118 Findings Include: a) Resident #1 Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from a critical illness recovery hospital. He had been at that facility from 01/22/25 - 02/18/25. He had previously been at another acute care hospital from [DATE] - 01/22/25. He was sent to the acute care hospital on [DATE] after his percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube malfunctioned. While hospitalized he had two (2) surgeries and left the hospital on [DATE] with a surgical wound to the left and right…

  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 · D2026-05-12 · 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview, resident interview, and observation, the facility failed to ensure physician orders were followed for residents receiving oxygen therapy. This failed practice had the potential to affect a limited number of residents. Resident Identifiers: #54 and #87. Facility Census: 117. Findings included:a) Resident #54 On 05/11/26 at 12:45 PM, Resident #54's oxygen concentrator was set on 1.5 liters and the resident reported he felt he was short of breath. The resident reported he was supposed to be on two (2) liters of oxygen. Review of Resident #54's electronic medical record revealed:-The resident's physician order stated, Oxygen at 2L/min via Nasal Cannula continuously every day and night shift. -The resident's care plan stated, Oxygen per order. On 05/11/25 at 2:26 PM, the resident's care plan was updated following surveyor intervention to include: Resident is non-compliant with use of oxygen since admission on [DATE]. Resident will at times refuse to wear oxygen, throw tubing…

  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 · D2026-05-12 · tag F0807 — failed to offer suitable drinks — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives and the facility provides drinks consistent with resident needs and preferences and sufficient to maintain resident hydration.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide adequate hydration for Residents #55, #107, and #68. These were random opportunities for discovery. Resident Identifiers: #55, #107 and #68. Facility Census: 117.Findings Included:a) Resident #55On 05/11/26 at 12:25 PM, an initial interview was held with Resident #55. The resident stated, I would like some ice water. The resident was asked, Did you get any fresh ice water today? Resident #55 stated, No, I haven't. An observation was made at this time of a 12-ounce Styrofoam cup, which was undated, that had a small amount of water and no ice inside the cup.On 05/11/26 at 12:30 PM, Activities Director #55 was asked to come into the resident's room. The Activities Director confirmed the cup was not dated and there was a small amount of water and no ice inside the cup.b) Resident #107On 05/11/26 at 12:35, an initial interview was held with Resident #107. Resident #107 is roommates with Resident #68. The resident was asked, Did you receive fresh ice water today? The resident stated, No, we…

  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 · Dcited before2026-05-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
  Provide 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 and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program related to the placement of urinary catheter drainage bags for Resident #72 and #78, and storage of a granulated cylinder for Resident #54. These were random opportunities for discovery. Resident Identifiers: #72, #78 and #54. Facility Census: 117. Findings Included:a) Resident #72On 05/11/26 at 12:19 PM, an initial interview was held with Resident #72. The urinary catheter drainage bag was observed behind the wheelchair hanging and touching the floor. On 05/11/26 at 12:23 PM, the Activities Director #55 was asked to come to the resident's room. The Activities Director #55 confirmed the urinary catheter drainage bag should not be touching the floor. The Activities Director #55 raised the bag and the urinary catheter drainage bag was not touching the floor.On 05/11/26 at approximately 12:40 PM, the Administrator was notified and confirmed the urinary catheter drainage bag should not be touching the floor. The Administrator stated, We will talk to the staff.b) Resident…

  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 · Dcited before2026-05-12 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolated
  Make sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure call systems were within the resident's reach. This failed practice had the potential to affect a limited number of residents. Resident Identifiers: #69 and #85. Facility Census: 117.Findings included:a) Resident #69On 05/11/26 at 12:30 PM, Resident #69's call light was attached to her nightstand. The resident was sitting in her wheelchair near the bottom of her bed. The resident stated, I want it close as I can. The resident's call light was not within reach.On 05/11/26, Activity Director #140 confirmed the call light was out of reach. The activity director attached the call light to the resident's blanket on the bed within the resident's reach.b) Resident #85 On 05/11/26 at 12:29 PM, Resident #85's call light was observed on the floor behind the resident's wheelchair. The resident was sitting in his wheelchair at the time. On 05/12/26, Activity Director #140 confirmed the resident's call light was in the floor and placed the call light within the resident's reach.c) Policy for Call LightsThe…

  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.

  Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-01-21 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
  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

  Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident's care plans were comprehensive, patent-centered and individualized for transfers. This was found true for five(5) of 31 care plans reviewed during the Long Term Care Survey process. Resident Identifiers: #2, #9, #84, #85, and #105. Facility Census: 117.Findings included: a) The facility's policy and procedure stated, the Center must develop and implement a person-centered care plan for each patient/resident (hereinafter patient) consistent with patient rights measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a patient's medical, nursing and mental and psychosocial needs and all services that meet professional standards of quality. b) On 01/20/2026 at 3:53 PM , the following resident's records were reviewed: Residents #2, #9, #84, #85 and #105. All five (5) care plans reviewed listed the intervention for transfers as Lift per assessment. The care plans were not individualized for each resident. On 01/20/2026 at 04:36 PM, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator confirmed the care plans were the same for…

  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 · D2026-01-21 · 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 record review, observation, staff interview and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's call light was adapted to a resident's individual physical needs. This failed practice was a random opportunity for discovery and had the potential to affect a limited number of residents. Resident identifier: #84. Facility census: 117. Findings included: a) Resident #84 On 01/19/2026 at 10:10 AM, Resident #84's call light was out of reach and attached to the bed. Registered Nurse (RN) #78 confirmed the call light was out of reach and stated, it was hooked around the bed. RN # 78 re-attached the call light in reach of the resident. The resident reported they could reach it and the resident stated, but no one answers it. RN #78 requested the resident to push the call light. The resident attempted to push the call light, but it did not come on. The resident was physically unable to activate the regular, standard call light button on the call light device. The state surveyor pushed the call light button, and it came on immediately. After surveyor intervention, an…

  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 before2026-01-21 · tag F0636 — isolated
  Assess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive assessment of resident preferences for customary routine and activities was completed and documented in the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) for one (1) of two (2) residents. This was true for Resident #15. Resident identifier: #15. Facility census: 117.Findings include:a) Resident #15On 01/20/25, a review of Resident #15's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) completed on 07/06/25 revealed that Section F (Preferences for Customary Routine and Activities) was not completed. The MDS reflected Not assessed for all required items, including:F0300 - Should the resident be interviewed regarding daily and activity preferencesF0400 - Interview for daily preferencesF0500 - Interview for activity preferencesF0600 - Primary respondent for daily and activity preferencesF0700 - Should a staff assessment be conductedF0800 - Staff assessment of daily and activity preferencesThis demonstrated that the facility failed to conduct and document an assessment of Resident #15's customary routine and activity preferences 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 Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-01-21 · tag F0645 — isolated
  PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based upon record review and staff interview, the facility failed to coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR) program when a new mental health diagnosis or change in condition is presented. This was found to be true for one (1) of six (6) residents during the long term care survey process. Resident identifier #87. Facility census: 117. Resident #87 a) On 01/20/26 reviewed Resident #87 PASARR dated 09/17/24. It was observed that the only diagnosis on the form was Delusional Disorder. According to the medical diagnosis listed for Resident #87 was diagnosed with conversion disorder with seizures or convulsions and anxiety disorder unspecified on 02/05/25. On 01/21/26 at approximately 9:00 a.m., interview with the facility's Social Worker verified the missed diagnosis and that a new PASARR should have been completed (Social Worker did submit a new PASARR on 01/21/26).

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-01-21 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review , observation, staff interview and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received food that accommodated the resident's intolerances and preferencesfor one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for choices. Resident Identifier: #84. Facility Census: 17. Findings included: a) The facility's policy and procedure for Person-Centered Choices stated, Patients/Residents (hereinafter resident) are offered a choice of nourishing, palatable, well-balanced food and beverage options that meet their daily nutritional needs, taking into consideration the preferences of each resident. b) On 01/20/2026, Resident #84's tray card was reviewed by the state surveyor. The resident received the following items on her tray: Fish on a bun, Potato Wedges and Sliced Peaches. Resident #84 reported they had told staff they did not like fish. The DON asked the resident if she wanted the rice or an alternate from the always available menu. The resident declined the rice and alternates from the always available menu. According to Resident #84's food preference list,…

  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 · D2026-01-21 · tag F0810 — isolated
  Provide special eating equipment and utensils for residents who need them and appropriate assistance.
  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 staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided a physician ordered assistive device during mealtime in the dining room. This failed practice was a random opportunity for discovery, and had the potential to affect a limited number of residents residing in the long term care facility. Resident Identifier: #6. Facility Census: 117. Findings included:a) Resident #6The facility's policy and procedure for Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) stated, Assistive devices and adaptive equipment are provided, as needed. The facility's policy and procedure for Dining Service Standards 6.6 Assistance - adaptive devices are provided, as indicated on the resident plan of care. The resident 's diet order stated, Regular Liberalized diet Regular Texture, Standard Thin Liquids consistency, Scoop plate with meals, large portions, [NAME] Cup. The resident's care plan interventions stated, Scoop plate with all meals, large portions, Kennedy cup. The resident's tray card…

  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.

Fines & penalties

$22,562 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $22,562 — penalty dated 2025-05-13

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 GENESIS HEALTHCARE — 184 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 →

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

CMS files one row per role, so the 18 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

10 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 82% 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 $8.0M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 45% 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 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in WV