3101 Plumas St., Reno, NV 89509 · Washoe County · (775) 829-7220
189 certified beds, about 155 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1988
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 295043 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 2, 2026, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Nevada average is 9.7, the national average 9.2).
None of its 41 health citations since December 2023 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.01 hours per resident per day, against 4.34 across Nevada and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.53 of those hours.
53.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Nevada average 45.1%).
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 41 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow infection control guidelines. Specifically, staff failed to properly disinfect goggles used in droplet precaution isolation rooms for 3 of 9 residents (Resident (R) 34, R51, and R77), failed to wear the required mask while in a droplet precaution isolation room for 1 of 9 residents (R34), and failed to ensure glucometer [blood sugar testing device] checks were performed in a manner to prevent infection for one resident (R60). These failures had the potential to result in the spread of infection to staff and residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, document review, and review of McGeer's criteria, the facility failed to have an Antibiotic Stewardship Program consistent with current standards of practice for the prescribing of an antibiotic for 4 of 4 residents (Resident (R) 83, R33, R126, and R85) reviewed for antibiotic stewardship out of a total sample of 33 residents. This failure had the potential to result in the unnecessary use of antibiotics, increasing the risk of antibiotic resistance and adverse medication-related side effects for residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medication at the bedside was assessed for self-administration for 1 of 33 sampled residents (Resident (R) 60). This failure placed the resident at risk of receiving more medication than prescribed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 33 sampled residents (Resident (R)114) was given the opportunity to make choices regarding his shower preference. This failure placed the resident at risk for a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to develop a care plan related to activities for 1 of 3 residents (Residents (R) 114) reviewed for activities out of a total sample of 33 residents. This failure placed residents at risk for a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the Comprehensive Care Plan was updated/revised for 3 of 33 sampled residents (Residents (R) 8, R56 and R68). The facility failed to update/revise the Behavior Care Plan to include resident specific interventions/approaches for R8 and R56. In addition, the facility failed to update/revise the care plan related to respiratory services for R68. These failures placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to initiate a care plan for heart failure, notify the physician of weight gain experienced in a five day period, follow and document the 1500 milliliter fluid restriction ordered, document why physician orders were not carried out by staff, and document a change in condition for one of one resident (Resident (R) 160) reviewed for congestive heart failure out of a total sample of 33 residents. Despite R160's diagnosis of congestive heart failure, recent six-pound weight gain in five days, and ordered fluid restriction, intravenous (IV) fluids were prescribed without documented reassessment of fluid status, intake/output monitoring, or evidence the order was carried out. These failures had the potential for R160 to experience fluid overload, decompensation, or the risk of rehospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure oxygen and respiratory therapies were administered in accordance with physician orders and professional standards of practice. The facility also failed to ensure staff recognized and intervened when ordered respiratory treatments were not delivered effectively for 2 of 33 sampled residents (Resident (R) 68 and R138). This deficient practice placed residents at risk for low oxygen levels, ineffective treatment, respiratory compromise, infection, and impaired cognition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to update physician orders and ensure medication labels accurately reflected the current route of administration of medication when a resident with a feeding tube began taking medications by mouth for 1 of 5 residents (Resident (R) 84) reviewed for medication administration out of a sample of 33 residents. This deficient practice placed the resident at risk for aspiration, ineffective medication delivery, and adverse outcomes related to improper route of administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, clinical record review, and document review, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to a dignified existence without discrimination when a resident-to-resident verbal altercation involved the use of racial slurs for 1 of 11 sampled residents (Resident #11). This deficient practice had the potential to result in psychosocial harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, clinical record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of verbal abuse was investigated and reported to the State Agency (SA) for 1 of 11 sampled residents (Resident #11). This deficient practice had the potential to result in psychosocial harm due to allegations of abuse not being thoroughly investigated and protections not put in place to prevent future abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, clinical record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a history of nicotine dependence had a care plan to address the resident's stated plans to continue smoking for 1 of 11 sampled residents (Resident #2). This deficient practice had the potential to result in facility staff being unaware of a resident's behavior and stated desire to continue smoking while wearing oxygen with the potential for the resident to suffer severe harm or death from burns as the result of smoking with oxygen in use from lack of care planned interventions to prevent adverse outcomes associated with the behavior.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, clinical record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure resident care plans were updated after a resident-to-resident altercation for 2 of 11 sampled residents (Residents #10 and #11). This deficient practice has the potential to result in a resident not receiving care and services to meet their needs and prevent further altercations and psychosocial harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, clinical record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a history of nicotine dependence and stated plans to continue smoking was adequately supervised to prevent the resident from experiencing a preventable accident while smoking with oxygen in place for 1 of 11 sampled residents (Resident #2) and two residents were not near Resident #2 while the resident was smoking with oxygen in place (Resident #3 and #4). This deficient practice had the potential to result in residents suffering burns causing severe pain and a decline in quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, clinical record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure a comfortable ambient air temperature was provided to residents (Resident #59, #19, #76, #30, #123, #104, #1, #2, #106, and #41) using the communal shower rooms in 3 of 3 facility shower rooms with temperatures of 62.1 degrees Fahrenheit (F), 62.4 F, and 67.6 F. This deficient practice had the potential to cause residents widespread discomfort before, during and after showers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure expired medications were removed from 2 of 3 medication storage rooms, and a wound care cart containing potentially hazardous opened treatment items remained secured. The opened items in the unsecured wound care cart had the potential to be available to resident's in and around the 400 Hall and the 400 Hall nurses' station.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the facility's electronic health record was not left open and accessible on a computer attached to a medication cart with a resident's identifiers and medication administration record visible while staff were not in attendance or sight of the cart for 1 of 21 residents residing on the 800 hall (Resident #15). This deficient practice had the potential to result in a resident's confidential information being accessed by unauthorized individuals including other residents or visitors without the resident's permission.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, clinical record review, and document review the facility failed to ensure a care plan was developed related to the care of a Foley catheter for 1 of 28 sampled residents (Resident #123). This deficient practice had the potential to result in residents not receiving care and services to meet their needs related to indwelling devices.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, clinical record review, and document review the facility failed to ensure a care plan was updated to include new interventions for the prevention of falls for 1 of 28 sampled residents (Resident #448). This deficient practice had the potential to result in residents not receiving care and services to meet their needs and help prevent falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, clinical record review, and document review the facility failed to ensure physician ordered wound care was performed for 1 of 28 sampled residents (Resident #448). This deficient practice had the potential for a resident's wound to worsen and/or delay healing.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, clinical record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's requests for a dentist appointment to address broken teeth and pain with chewing food were addressed and efforts were made to schedule the resident for a dental appointment for 1 of 28 sampled residents (Resident #59). This deficient practice had the potential to result in a resident with dental concerns experiencing increased pain with chewing food or infection from cracked and broken teeth.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, document review, and interview the facility failed to demonstrate effective administration by not ensuring the Administrator and the Director of Engineering adequately addressed the low ambient temperatures in 3 of 3 shower rooms.
Inspectors wroteResident #198 Resident #198 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including fusion of the spine, lumbar region, encounter for orthopedic aftercare, other spondylosis, lumbar region, and intervertebral dis disorders with radiculopathy, lumbar region. Resident #198's December 2024 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) documented wound treatment: clean left lower back surgical incision with normal saline, pat dry, apply skin, cover with island dressing every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and as needed if dressing becomes soiled or dislodged. The start date was 12/20/2024. There was no wound treatment documented for 12/23/2024. Resident #198's December 2024 TAR documented wound treatment: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure an employee donned proper personal protective equipment (PPE) prior to entering a resident's room on isolation contact-based precautions for 1 of 2 residents on contact-based precautions (Resident #119). This deficient practice of lack of proper infection control practices had the potential to spread infection and affect all residents within the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review the facility failed to ensure current nursing hours were posted for the facility. This deficient practice had the potential to result in a lack of awareness for residents and visitors regarding the number of nursing staff on duty.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, clinical record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was protected from verbal and physical abuse by a Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) when the CNA yelled at and threw an object at 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #1). This deficient practice had the potential to result in physical and psychosocial harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a stage four pressure ulcer was evaluated timely by the facility's Registered Dietician and a physician ordered nutritional supplement was administered to the resident (Resident #1). This deficient practice had the potential to result in a pressure ulcer to not receive the services and treatment to promote healing and prevention.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, clinical record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from misappropriation of property when a Housekeeper asked for money from a resident for 1 of 11 Facility Reported Incidents (FRI) (Resident #1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, clinical record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident or resident representative gave informed consent prior to placing a resident's bed on the floor, against the wall and a resident had been provided with an informed consent for a psychoactive medication prior to the administration of the medication for 3 of 26 sampled residents (Resident #102, #40 and #87).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure grievances and complaints documented from Resident Council meetings related to missing and misplaced laundry were addressed and acted upon for 5 of 10 months of Resident Council meeting minutes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, clinical record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was developed 1) for a psychotropic medication (Residents #87), 2) to address a resident's phantom limb sensations and pain (Resident #322), 3) for the use and management of an anticoagulant (Resident #45), 4) regarding wound care and the care of a skin graft (Resident #96), and 5) the administration and monitoring of oxygen and the use of siderails (Resident #79) for 5 of 26 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, interview and document review, the facility failed to follow a physician's order for respiratory care for 1 of 26 sampled residents (Resident #49).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, clinical record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with phantom limb sensations and severe pain had non-pharmacological interventions to manage the resident's pain for 1 of 26 sampled residents (Resident #322).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to ensure alternatives were attempted and informed consent was obtained prior to installation of side rails for 1 of 26 sampled residents (Resident #79).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, clinical record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a recommendation from a drug regimen review had a follow up response or rationale from the prescriber for 2 of 26 sampled residents (Resident #87 and #79).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, clinical record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a psychotropic medication was prescribed to a resident for an appropriate indication for 1 of 26 sampled residents (Resident #87).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, clinical record review, and document review the facility failed to ensure unsecured medications were not left in a resident's room for 1 of 26 sampled residents (Resident #10) and failed to ensure expired medications were removed from 1 of 6 medication carts.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, clinical record review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a peripherally inserted continuous catheter (PICC) line had the PICC line dressing changed per facility policy for 1 of 26 sampled residents (Resident #319).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure training related to communication was provided to 2 of 20 sampled employees (Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) CNA1 and CNA2).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, interview, and document review, the facility failed to complete Treatment Administration Records (TAR) for the administration of care of a urinary catheter for 2 of 26 sampled residents (Resident #40 and #72), and for the administration of care of a gastrostomy tube (G-tube) for 1 of 26 sampled residents (Resident #85), and failed to ensure resident information was not visible on an unattended computer screen facing a public area for 1 of 26 sampled residents (Resident #6).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, clinical record review, and document review the facility failed to administer medications per a physician's order for 2 of 7 sampled residents (Resident #2 and #3).
26 fire safety citations on file: 7 on April 2, 2026, 8 on January 13, 2025, 11 on February 6, 2024.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Nevada | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.01 | 4.34 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.53 | 1.12 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.72 | 3.86 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.53 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.95 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 53.8% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 33.3% | 43.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.41 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.13 on weekdays and 2.72 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 2.91 in April to June 2025 to 3.01 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.01 | 0.53 | 3.13 | 2.72 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 155 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.97 | 0.47 | 3.09 | 2.67 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 154 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.08 | 0.47 | 3.21 | 2.75 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 151 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 2.91 | 0.44 | 3.08 | 2.46 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 152 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Nevada, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.88 | 0.85 | 4.05 | 3.46 | 2.7% | 0.1% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nevada, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $21.87 | $18.80 to $23.07 | 8,100 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $36.62 | $31.70 to $38.26 | 3,350 |
| Registered nurses | $49.84 | $41.76 to $57.82 | 27,070 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Nevada | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 17.8 | 12.6 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.4 | 1.9 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.3 | 13.5 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.2 | 5.4 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.3 | 17.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.9 | 23.2 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.8 | 9.6 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.6 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.5 | 1.4 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Alpine Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (49.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
49.6% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Nevada: 9 better, 7 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 232 eligible stays.
10.8% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Nevada: 0 better, 5 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 223 eligible stays.
7.8% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Nevada: 1 better, 0 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 169 eligible stays.
45.6% this home
Median of homes: Nevada60.3% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 68 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Nevada0.4% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 145 residents counted.
2.1% this home
Median of homes: Nevada1.6% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 145 residents counted.
77.2% this home
Median of homes: Nevada91.8% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 57 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: REVIVE RENO LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revive Reno LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 02/01/2022 | |
| Gray, Chelsey | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Gray, Zachary | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Asl Realty LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 02/01/2022 | |
| Gray Estate Holdings LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 02/01/2022 | |
| Plumas Street LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 02/01/2022 | |
| Gray, Zachary | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Lebowitz, Andrew | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Gray, Chelsey | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Gray, Zachary | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Nadora, Marie | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Nasrawy, Joseph | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Gray, Zachary | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Gray, Chelsey | Limited partnership interest | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Asl Realty LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/01/2022 | |
| Gray Estate Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/01/2022 | |
| Plumas Street LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/01/2022 | |
| Revive Health Senior Care Management LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/01/2022 | |
| Revive Reno LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2025 | |
| Gray, Chelsey | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Gray, Zachary | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Lebowitz, Andrew | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Nadora, Marie | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Nasrawy, Joseph | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2022 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.