Home / Pennsylvania / Altoona
301 Valley View Boulevard, Altoona, PA 16602 · Blair County · (814) 944-0845
240 certified beds, about 212 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1981
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395514 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 7, 2025, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
None of its 56 health citations since October 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 3.66 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.42 of those hours.
43.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Mb Healthcare, an affiliated group of 12 nursing homes.
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 56 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies, clinical records, observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement interventions in a resident's care plan to prevent a wandering resident from entering other's rooms for six of 19 residents reviewed (Residents 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and clinical records, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Minimum Data Set (MDS) validation report, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Care Area Assessment Process of comprehensive Minimum Data Set assessments and comprehensive assessments were completed in the required time frame for 11 of 65 residents reviewed (Residents 1, 9, 30, 39, 51, 85, 108, 115, 180, 222, 238).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument Manual and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that quarterly Minimum Data Set assessments were completed within the required time frame for 15 of 65 residents reviewed (Residents 10, 22, 43, 71, 72, 75, 77, 83, 108, 112, 115, 124, 150, 190, 199).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument, clinical records, and the Minimum Data Set validation report, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to transmit Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments to the required electronic system, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Quality Improvement and Evaluation System (QIES) Assessment Submission and Processing (ASAP) System, within 14 days of completion for 3 of 65 residents reviewed (Residents 26, 83, 218).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and residents' clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete accurate Minimum Data Set assessments for six of 65 residents reviewed (Residents 3, 5, 8, 75, 112, 186).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders for medications were followed for three of 65 residents reviewed (Residents 51, 72, 180).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan that included specific and individualized interventions to address the care needs of residents for one of 65 residents reviewed (Resident 83).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of manufacturer's instructions and clinical records, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to date an opened multidose vial of tuberculin solution (used to detect tuberculosis infection) in one of two medication storage area refrigerators reviewed (Unit D2). The facility's policy regarding medication storage, dated July 17, 2025, indicated that it is the policy of this facility to ensure all medications housed on their premises will be stored in the pharmacy and/or medication rooms according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Manufacturer's instructions for Aplisol solution, dated November 2013, indicated that vials in use more than 30 days should be discarded due to possible oxidation and degradation which may affect potency. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of established infection control guidelines, facility policy, and residents' clinical records, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow infection control guidelines from the Centers for Medicare/Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to reduce the spread of infections and prevent cross-contamination for one of 65 residents reviewed (Resident 5).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders were followed for one of 11 residents reviewed (Resident 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of established infection control guidelines, facility policy, and residents' clinical records, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow infection control guidelines from the Centers for Medicare/Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to reduce the spread of infections and prevent cross-contamination for one of five residents reviewed (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to use proper infection control practices for handling linen while providing care for two of 11 residents reviewed (Residents 10, 11).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that comprehensive admission and annual Minimum Data Set assessments were completed in the required time frame for four of 57 residents reviewed (Residents 32, 128, 204, 225).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument Manual and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that quarterly Minimum Data Set assessments were completed within the required timeframe for four of 57 residents reviewed (Residents 33, 147, 157, 159).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete accurate Minimum Data Set assessments for eight of 57 residents reviewed (Residents 1, 3, 143, 148, 171, 182, 192, 194).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were provided as ordered by the physician for two of 57 residents reviewed (Residents 2, 143).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that enteral feedings (feeding through a tube inserted directly into the stomach) were administered in accordance with physician's orders and failed to ensure that residents who were receiving enteral feedings received appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications for two of 57 residents reviewed (Residents 20, 56). A facility policy for tube feeding, dated May 8, 2024, revealed that it is the policy and procedure to provide nourishment to the resident who is unable to obtain nourishment orally. The procedure for administering tube feeding includes to check for residual (the amount of gastric fluid in the stomach between feedings) by pulling back no more than 150 cubic centimeters (cc). Note the amount of residual if any. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review facility policies and clinical records, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to use proper infection control practices for cleaning durable medical equipment for two of 57 residents reviewed (Residents 47, 133), and for providing care for five of 57 residents reviewed (Residents 101, 152, 163, 184, 204).
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews with residents and staff, as well as observations, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents could make choices about aspects of their lives that were significant to them, such as eating in the dining room with other residents, for nine of 57 residents reviewed (Residents 70, 72, 79, 125, 149, 151, 157, 162, 164).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the required notice to the resident or the resident's representative following the end of their Medicare coverage, or failed to provide 48-hour advanced notice, for two 57 residents reviewed (Residents 201, 228).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident and resident's representative, in writing, regarding the reason for hospitalization for six of 57 residents reviewed (Residents 85, 96, 157, 171, 192, 218).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that comprehensive significant change Minimum Data Set assessments were completed in the required time frame for two of 57 residents reviewed (Residents 96, 171).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop care plans to address individualized resident care needs for one of 57 residents reviewed (Resident 182).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that care plans were updated to reflect changes in residents' care needs for two of 57 residents reviewed (Residents 125, 191).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and the facility's investigation documents, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the residents' environment remained as free from falls as possible and failed to develop and implement interventions to prevent falls for one of 57 residents reviewed (Resident 165) who had a history of falling.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were assessed and received trauma-informed care to eliminate or mitigate triggers for residents with the diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (a mental and behavioral disorder that develops related to a terrifying event) for one of 57 residents reviewed (Resident 46).
Inspectors wroteBased on a list of nurse aides provided by the facility and their personnel files, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that nurse aide performance evaluations were completed annually based on the hire dates for three of three nurse aides reviewed (Nurse Aide 1, Nurse Aide 2, Nurse Aide 3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that controlled medications (drugs with the potential to be abused) were properly secured in the medication cart for one of 57 residents reviewed (Resident 14) and failed to ensure that medications were appropriately labeled for one of 57 residents reviewed (Resident 47). The facility's policy for medication storage dated May 8, 2024, included that all controlled drugs are stored under double-lock and key. Physician's orders for Resident 14, dated August 25, 2024, included an order to give the resident 0.5 milligrams (mg) of Clonazepam every eight hours for anxiety. Observations of the [NAME] Hall medication cart on August 27, 2024, at 8:39 a.m. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that food was served under sanitary conditions and failed to ensure that dietary staff wore appropriate hair and beard coverings in the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and investigation documents, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that clinical records were complete and accurately documented for one of 57 residents reviewed (Resident 225).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain the required information from the contracted hospice provider for one of 57 residents reviewed (Resident 128).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's plans of correction for previous surveys, and the results of the current survey, it was determined that the facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to maintain compliance with nursing home regulations and ensure that plans to improve the delivery of care and services effectively addressed recurring deficiencies.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide medication as ordered by the physician, resulting in a significant medication error for one of five residents reviewed (Resident 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Pennsylvania's Nursing Practice Act, job descriptions, and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to correctly transcribe physician's orders for one of five residents reviewed (Resident 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies and clinical records, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that oxygen was provided as ordered by the physician for one of five residents reviewed (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies, clinical records, and investigation documents, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that staff reported an allegation of verbal abuse in a timely manner for one of six residents reviewed (Resident 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans that included specific and individualized interventions to address resident care needs for two of nine residents reviewed (Residents 3, 7).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that dialysis residents had an active physician's order to attend dialysis and failed to obtain physician's orders for the care and monitoring of dialysis sites for one of nine residents reviewed (Resident 7).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and residents' clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete accurate Minimum Data Set assessments for two of nine residents reviewed (Residents 3, 7).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care for wounds in accordance with professional standards of practice by failing to follow recommendations from wound consultations for one of nine residents reviewed (Resident 3), and failed to ensure that the physician was notified about elevated blood sugar results as ordered for one of nine residents reviewed (Resident 7).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, clinical records, and investigation documents, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that clinical records were complete and accurately documented for two of nine residents reviewed (Residents 2, 9).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that laboratory specimens were obtained as ordered by the physician for one of nine residents reviewed (Resident 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that comprehensive admission and annual Minimum Data Set assessments were completed in the required timeframe for seven of 58 residents reviewed (Residents 51, 80, 156, 168, 170, 183, 191 ).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual and residents' clinical records, as well as staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete accurate Minimum Data Set assessments for nine of 58 residents reviewed (Residents 48, 57, 79, 113, 117, 126, 148, 155, 192).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan that included specific and individualized interventions to address care needs for four of 58 residents reviewed (Resident 5, 45, 67, 150).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders regarding notification of the physician for blood sugar results were followed for one of 58 residents reviewed (Resident 48).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of package inserts, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to discard expired medical supplies in one out of three medication rooms reviewed (D1) and one out of one treatment rooms reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility's policies, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to serve food items that were palatable and at proper temperatures.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that food was served under sanitary conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's plans of correction and the results of the current survey, it was determined that the facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to correct quality deficiencies and ensure that plans to improve the delivery of care and services effectively addressed recurring deficiencies.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of manufacturer's instructions and information provided by the facility, as well as observations and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective preventative maintenance program for the walk-in-freezer and failed to maintain the dish machine in proper working condition in the Main Kitchen, taking away the residents' right to have a homelike environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents' baseline care plans included information regarding their immediate care needs for one of 58 residents reviewed (Resident 195).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policies and clinical records, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that care plans were updated to reflect changes in residents' care needs for three of 58 residents reviewed (Residents 31, 145, 152).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of manufacturer's instructions and clinical records, as well as resident, family, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents had proper assistive devices to maintain adequate hearing for one of 58 residents reviewed (Resident 92).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, as well as observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a medication administration error rate that was less than five percent.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, as well as resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain clinical records that were complete and accurately documented for one of 58 residents reviewed (Resident 45).
22 fire safety citations on file: 3 on August 7, 2025, 12 on August 28, 2024, 7 on October 26, 2023.
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 | Pennsylvania | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.66 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.42 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.13 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.27 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.97 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 43.8% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 44.8% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.49 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 3.88 on weekdays and 3.13 on weekends, 19% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 20.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.41 in April to June 2025 to 3.66 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 | 3.66 | 0.42 | 3.88 | 3.13 | 20.5% | 0 of 90 | 212 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.61 | 0.47 | 3.79 | 3.15 | 23.2% | 0 of 92 | 212 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.67 | 0.49 | 3.87 | 3.18 | 32.9% | 0 of 92 | 210 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.41 | 0.55 | 3.56 | 3.01 | 31.4% | 0 of 91 | 213 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Pennsylvania, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.69 | 0.65 | 3.82 | 3.34 | 11.3% | 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.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pennsylvania, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $21.44 | $18.88 to $22.52 | 67,740 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $30.74 | $29.02 to $35.01 | 38,260 |
| Registered nurses | $46.36 | $38.75 to $50.35 | 146,520 |
| 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 | Pennsylvania | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.6 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.2 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.2 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.5 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.6 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 27.1 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.6 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Maybrook Hills Rehabilitation and Healthcare Cente's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (33.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
33.8% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Pennsylvania: 100 better, 108 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. 123 eligible stays.
10.6% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Pennsylvania: 3 better, 9 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. 133 eligible stays.
7.3% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Pennsylvania: 7 better, 5 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. 101 eligible stays.
52.9% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania54.4% · 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. 51 residents counted.
2.3% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania0.0% · 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. 86 residents counted.
1.0% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania2.0% · 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. 86 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania100.0% · 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. 29 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: MAYBROOK-C VALLEY VIEW OPCO LLC. CMS links this home to Mb Healthcare, a group of 12 nursing homes averaging 3.6 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mb Vv Altoona Holdings | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 29% | 02/28/2018 |
| Brodt, Moshe | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 16% | 02/28/2018 |
| Dorfman, Yaakov | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 02/28/2018 | |
| Ike, Akiko | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 10/30/2018 | |
| Piller, Mendy | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 02/28/2018 | |
| Farkovits, Joshua | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 02/28/2018 | |
| Buterbaugh, Heidi | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/30/2024 | |
| Sommers, Dovid | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/28/2018 | |
| Schloss, Deborah | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 07/28/2025 | |
| Mb Healthcare Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/28/2018 | |
| Buterbaugh, Heidi | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/30/2024 | |
| Scharf, Brett | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/01/1998 |
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.
These are the official offices in Pennsylvania. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.