Home / Texas / Rio Grande City
5260 Brand St., Rio Grande City, TX 78582 · Starr County · (888) 707-8277
120 certified beds, about 101 residents a day · Government - Hospital district · Medicare and Medicaid since 2020
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 676495 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 13, 2026, inspectors cited 5 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
None of its 27 health citations since July 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 2.99 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.47 of those hours.
42.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Wellsential Health, an affiliated group of 67 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 27 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who entered the facility without pressure ulcers did not develop pressure ulcers and residents having pressure ulcers received care and treatment consistent with professional standards of practice to promote healing and further development of skin breakdown or pressure ulcers for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. -The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was repositioned to promote healing. This failure placed residents at risk of developing new pressure injuries/ulcers, worsening of existing pressure injuries/ulcers, infection, experiencing pain, decreased quality of life, and death.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care was provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 4 (Resident #30) residents reviewed for oxygen in that:Resident #30's oxygen tubing was not connected to the concentrator. This failure could place residents who receive oxygen at risk of developing respiratory complications and a decreased quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were secured and stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles and standards for 1 of 2 medication storage rooms (200 Hall Medication Storage Room) reviewed for medication storage. The facility failed to ensure the 200 Hall Discontinued Medication cabinet was locked and secured. This failure could place the residents at risk of gaining access to unlocked medications that were not prescribed to them and place the facility at risk of drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for storage, preparation and sanitation. The facility failed to ensure all food products in standing freezer were labeled and dated. This failure could place residents at risk for food contamination and food-borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents are free from chemical restraints for one (Resident #6) of three residents reviewed for medications. The facility failed to have an adequate indication for the use of the medication Zyprexa (Olanzapine- atypical antipsychotic) for Resident #6. This failure could put residents at risks of receiving unnecessary psychotropic medications. Record review of Resident #6's admission Record dated 01/13/26 indicated Resident #6 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with an original admission date of 08/07/24. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from any significant medication errors for one of five residents (Resident #2) reviewed for medication errors. The facility failed to administer Resident #2's clonidine (blood pressure medication) when Resident #2's blood pressure was within parameters 12 days in the months of September and October 2025. This failure could place residents at risk for complications such as increased blood pressure, exacerbation of symptoms, and potential hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility must ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care, including tracheostomy care and tracheal suctioning, is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents' goals and preferences, for 1 of 5 residents (Resident#1) reviewed for oxygen in that:The facility failed to ensure Residents #1 oxygen therapy was being properly administered. This deficient practice could place residents who receive oxygen therapy at an increased risk of developing respiratory complications and a decreased quality of care. Findings Included: Record review of Resident #1's electronic face sheet dated 10/14/2025 reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included the following: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that were complete and accurately documented for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for medication administration. The facility failed to accurately document Resident #1's Medication Administration Record for Oxygen Therapy that was administered from 10/10/2025 through 10/14/2025. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of having inaccurate medical records. Findings Included:Record review of Resident #1's electronic face sheet dated 10/14/2025 reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included the following: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection for one (Resident #3) of five residents reviewed for infection control, in that:On 10/18/2025, the facility failed to ensure CNA A removed her contaminated gloves and performed hand hygiene after touching multiple surfaces prior to initiating Resident #3's perineal incontinent care These failures could place residents at risk of contamination and infection. FindingsRecord review of Resident #3's Admissions Record dated 10/18/2025 revealed Resident #3 was a [AGE] year-old-female who was initially admitted [DATE]. Resident #3 was admitted with several diagnoses including: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preference for one (Resident #9) of three residents reviewed for call lights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #9 had the call light within reach while in bed in his room. This failure could place residents at risk of being unable to obtain assistance or help when needed and in the event of an emergency.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to perform preadmission screening for individuals with a mental disorder and individuals with intellectual disability prior to admission for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #67) reviewed for preadmission screening. The facility failed to perform a PASRR for Resident #67 after she was admitted on [DATE] with readmission on [DATE]. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving inadequate care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident, who was fed by enteral means, received the appropriate treatment and services to restore, if possible, oral eating skills and to prevent complications of enteral feeding including but not limited to aspiration pneumonia, diarrhea, vomiting, dehydration, metabolic abnormalities, and nasal-pharyngeal ulcers for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #21) reviewed for enteral feeding. The facility failed to ensure Resident #21's head of bed was maintained at 30 degrees elevated while receiving continuous feeding. The failure could place residents at risk of aspiration (when food or liquid goes into the lungs or airway).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who needed respiratory care were provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences for 1 of 5 (Resident #301) residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #301's oxygen was administered at the correct setting of 2 liters per minute on 10/14/24 at 11:57 a.m. This failure places residents who receive respiratory care at an increased risk of developing respiratory complications and a decreased quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 2 of 4 residents (Residents #26 and #304), reviewed for pharmaceutical services. The facility failed to ensure: LVN M performed a safety check and compare physician orders against single dose bister pack prior to administering Resident #26's medication. LVN N perform a safety check and compare physician orders against single dose bister pack prior to administering Resident #304's medication . These deficient practices placed residents at risk for not receiving the therapeutic effects of their prescribed medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program, designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections, for four (R#48, R#52, R#26 and R#53) of 24 residents that were reviewed for infection control and transmission-based precautions policies and practices, in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #48's indwelling catheter drainage bag was not touching the floor when placed behind his wheelchair. 2. The facility failed to ensure LVN M performed hand hygiene for at least 20 seconds before medication administration for Resident #52. 3. LVN M failed to properly clean a multi-use medical device between each resident during medication administration for Resident #26 and Resident #53. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement its written policies and procedures to prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property, for 2 of 5 residents (Resident#4 and Resident #5) reviewed for abuse and neglect, in that: Facility staff member, LVN A did not implement facility abuse policy related to reporting abuse to the Administrator when Resident #4 and Resident #5 got into an altercation on 05/21/24. This failure could place residents at risk of abuse and neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (which included to the State Survey Agency) in accordance with State law through established procedures for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #4 and Resident #5) reviewed for reporting alleged allegation of abuse. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preference for one (Resident #2) of four residents reviewed for call light. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's call light was within reach. This failure could place residents at risk of being unable to obtain assistance when needed and help in the event of an emergency.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was coded in the MDS for a fall on 2/16/24. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving care and services to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 2 of 7 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #3) reviewed for care plans, in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's care plan revised on 03/10/2024 reflected an injury for a witnessed fall on 02/15/2024. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3's quarterly care plan dated 03/28/2024 reflected an un-witnessed fall he had on 02/29/2024. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, or mistreatment, were reported immediately to the State Survey Agency, within two hours if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, for 1 (R #1) of 5 residents reviewed for abuse/neglect. The facility failed to report allegations of resident abuse for R #1 to the State Survey Agency within the allotted time frame of 2 hours. This failure could place all residents at increased risk for potential abuse due to unreported allegations of abuse and neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs, for 1 (R #1) of 5 residents reviewed for care plans, in that: The facility failed to ensure R #1's care plan was revised to reflect the supervised visits with RP. This failure could place residents at risk of current needs not being met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 (Resident #2) of 3 residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 was coded severely visually impaired on his MDS assessment. This failure could place residents at risk of improper or incorrect care and services necessary for their physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to review and revise the person-centered comprehensive care plan to reflect the resident's current status, for 2 (Resident #1 and Resident #2) of 3 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure: Resident #1's and Resident #2's care plan reflected their behavior of not using the call light when they needed assistance. Resident #2's ADL's were addressed on his care plan. This failure could place residents for their medical, physical, and psychosocial needs not being met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records on each resident that were complete and accurate, for one Resident (R#114), of four residents reviewed for clinical records, in that; The facility did not document physician orders that indicated to document the level of pain every shift with a scale of 0-10. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving proper care and treatments.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment, that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, for one Resident (Resident #120) of eight residents reviewed for dignity issues. The facility failed to place the urinary catheter drainage bag in a privacy bag, leaving the urine in the bag visually exposed. This failure could place residents at risk of feeling uncomfortable and disrespected and could decrease residents' self-esteem and/or quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infections for 1 of 2 Residents (Resident #24) observed for infection control procedures, in that: Hospitality Aide B failed to donn Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) while in a Resident #24's room who was in contact isolation. This failure could place the residents on isolation precautions at risk for cross contamination and infection.
2 fire safety citations on file: 1 on January 13, 2026, 1 on July 21, 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 | Texas | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 2.99 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.47 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.65 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.82 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.70 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 42.7% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 25.0% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.66 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 2.65 on weekends, 15% 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 3.21 in April to June 2025 to 2.99 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 | 2.99 | 0.47 | 3.13 | 2.65 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 101 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.11 | 0.46 | 3.24 | 2.78 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 100 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.07 | 0.38 | 3.16 | 2.82 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 101 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.21 | 0.37 | 3.31 | 2.94 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 99 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Texas, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.33 | 0.40 | 3.50 | 2.93 | 2.2% | 0.7% 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.
Trains nurse aides: this home runs a state-approved CNA program (state list: HHSC Approved NATCEP Providers, as of October 6, 2026). A nursing home cannot charge aides it employs, or has offered a job, for state-approved training (42 CFR 483.152(c)). See Starr County Nursing and Transitional Care CNA training on CareerFunded, our sister site for career training.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texas, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.03 | $16.97 to $20.71 | 88,680 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.92 | $27.46 to $32.89 | 57,560 |
| Registered nurses | $46.14 | $38.06 to $50.53 | 271,380 |
| 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 | Texas | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 12.2 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.4 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.7 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.7 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.7 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 27.7 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.6 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Starr County Nursing and Transitional Care's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (49.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
49.5% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Texas: 116 better, 50 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. 105 eligible stays.
12.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Texas: 0 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. 101 eligible stays.
6.4% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Texas: 4 better, 11 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. 63 eligible stays.
50.0% this home
Median of homes: Texas57.3% · 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. 26 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Texas0.0% · 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. 43 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Texas1.3% · 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. 43 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Texas98.5% · 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. 25 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: OAKBEND MEDICAL CENTER. CMS links this home to Wellsential Health, a group of 67 nursing homes averaging 2.7 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oakbend Medical Center | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 03/01/2023 |
| Regency IHS Rgc LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Csv Rhea Management Holdco, LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Dwd Tx Holdings LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Jack and Nancy Dwyer Workforce Development Center Inc | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Reg Bridge Opco LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Reg Hg Opco LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Reg Operator Holdco LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Regency Integrated Health Services LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Regency Texas Holdings LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Baird, Daniel | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/13/2021 | |
| Clapp, Barbara | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2021 | |
| Cortese, Daren | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/10/2021 | |
| Crayton, Tom | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/15/2013 | |
| Dorman, John | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/18/2022 | |
| Freudenberger, Joseph | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/19/2007 | |
| Gibson, Patricia | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/01/2021 | |
| Haley, Jeff | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 07/15/2016 | |
| King, Abby | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/23/2018 | |
| King, Elizabeth | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/17/2023 | |
| Mandelbaum, Elliot | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Pisani, Adam | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/15/2019 | |
| Popatia, Amirali | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 03/17/2020 | |
| Stuart, Julius | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/16/2023 | |
| Uthman, Edward | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/15/2008 | |
| Freudenberger, Joseph | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/19/2007 | |
| Oakbend Medical Center | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Regency IHS Rgc LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Regency Integrated Health Services LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Dekowski, Donovan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| Flores, Michellle | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/17/2023 | |
| Oakbend Medical Center | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/29/2025 | |
| Regency IHS Rehab LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Regency IHS Rgc LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/29/2025 | |
| Regency Integrated Health Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/29/2025 | |
| Starr County SNF Project LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2022 | |
| Dekowski, Donovan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| Flores, Michellle | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/17/2023 | |
| Robles, Maria | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Rosa, Myrna | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Vasquez Aguilar, Mario | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 |
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 Texas. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.