517 West Page Street, Rose City, MI 48654 · Ogemaw County · (989) 685-2442
102 certified beds, about 66 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1979
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 235380 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 22, 2026, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the Michigan average is 9.9, the national average 9.2).
Of 40 health citations since March 2024, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $50,895 in the last three years; the largest was $50,895, and the latest is dated October 24, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.67 hours per resident per day, against 3.99 across Michigan and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.90 of those hours.
27.6% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Michigan average 44.1%).
CMS links it to Villa Healthcare, an affiliated group of 21 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 40 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteThis Citation Pertains to Intake 3071455. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to operationalize procedures to ensure accurate completion of skin assessments for one resident (Resident #701) of three residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteThis Citation Pertains to Intake Number 3031745. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement and operationalize policies and procedures to ensure that allegations of abuse were reported for one resident (Resident #701) of three residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteThis Citation Pertains to Intake 3031745. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were thoroughly investigated and residents were protected from further potential abuse for one (#701) of three residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain best practices in the food service area resulting in the potential to spread food borne illness to all residents who consume food from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement and operationalize a comprehensive Infection Control (IC) program incorporating outcome and process surveillance, comprehensive data collection, tracking of potential infections, analysis, and trend identification resulting in the potential for spread of microorganisms and illness to all 68 facility residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement and operationalize a comprehensive antibiotic stewardship program, incorporating a facility wide system to monitor, track, and ensure accountability for antibiotic use including consistent use and documentation of standardized tools/criteria for antibiotic therapy resulting in the potential for inappropriate antimicrobial use and the development of resistant organisms for all 68 facility residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a sanitary environment for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for clean environment (Resident #18) and a safe environment for all residents currently residing in the facility. Findings Include: Resident #18: Review of the resident's Face Sheet, nursing notes dated 2/26 through 4/26, and care plans dated 10/24/23, revealed Resident #18 was 76 years-old, admitted to the facility on [DATE], alert but not able to make own healthcare decisions, dependent on staff for Activities of Daily Living and exhibited extensive behaviors; Fall Risk care plan dated 10/24/23, revealed his mattress was on the floor due to a fall history with behaviors. The resident's diagnoses included, chronic lung disease, adjustment disorder, depression, stroke, and Hemiplegia of the right side. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the dignity of 4 of 6 residents reviewed for dignity (Residents #5, #26, #45 and #62). Findings Include:Resident #45: On 4/20/26 at 9:46 AM, Resident #45 was observed in their room, lying in bed on their back with their eyes closed. A urinary catheter drainage bag was observed on the left side of the bed, towards the room door. The urinary drainage bag was not contained in a bag and did not have a dignity cover in place. Resident #45's urine was very dark and the color of coke. Record review revealed Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included left femur fracture, heart failure and respiratory failure. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, the facility failed to provide a Stop Date for an as-needed (prn) antipsychotic medication (Ativan) for one resident (Resident #21) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, resulting in no 14-day Stop Date.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to update care plans in a timely manner for one resident (Resident #49) of 3 residents reviewed for care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate documentation of care per professional standards of practice for one resident (Resident #2) of one resident reviewed for Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that oral care was provided for one resident (Resident #71) of three residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to assess, monitor and document wound care for two residents (Resident #12, Resident #75) and improperly used a positioning device for one resident (Resident #5) out of three residents reviewed for quality of care, resulting in old, undated wound dressings and no physician's orders for a positioning device.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to prevent the development of facility-acquired Deep Tissue Injuries (DTI) for two residents (Resident #6, Resident #29) of 6 residents reviewed for wounds.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide sanitary nebulizer storage for one resident (Resident #2) and provide safe oxygen administration for one resident (Resident #77) of two residents reviewed for respiratory medication needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one (Resident #5) of 5 residents reviewed for medication storage were properly stored. Findings Include: Resident #5: Review of the Face Sheet, nurse's notes dated 2/26 through 4/26, and care plans dated 3/25, revealed Resident #5 was 61 years-old, admitted to the facility on [DATE], alert and able to make own healthcare decisions, and dependent on staff for Activities of Daily Living. The residents diagnosis included, low back pain, muscle wasting, muscle weakness, osteomyelitis, sacral wound, urinary catheter in place, adjustment disorder, major depression and chronic kidney disease. Review of the residents Mood problem care plan dated 11/11/24, revealed staff were to administer mediations as ordered and monitor for side effects. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide fresh fluids at bedside for one resident (Resident #49) of six residents reviewed for bedside fluids.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the sanitizer for the wiping cloths, used to sanitize food preparation areas, was at the correct concentration for disinfection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that medications and medical supplies were secured, stored and disposed of per professional standards of practice in one of two medication storage rooms, one of two medication carts, and one treatment cart.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement and operationalize policies and procedures for management and care of a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter per standards of practice for one resident (Resident #124) of one resident reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow two physicians' orders to discontinue a medication for one resident (Resident #11) of five residents' records reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one resident (#121) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications had appropriate indications for use.
Inspectors wroteThis Citation pertains to Intake Number MI00147582. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate supervision, follow and implementtimely interventions for three residents (Resident #1,Resident #2 and Resident #3) of three residents reviewed for falls, resulting in repeated unwitnessed falls, an eyebrow laceration, right hip and left hip fractures with the likelihood of further falls and/or injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure adequate staff training and supervision during facility van transportation and appropriate emergency medical response for one (#216) of one resident reviewed resulting in the wheelchair lift platform not being raised during Resident removal from the facility transportation van, Resident #216 being pulled out of the van in their wheelchair without the platform lift elevated, falling, and experiencing unnecessary pain, lacerations, multiple soft tissue injuries, a cervical spine (neck) fracture, and psychosocial distress utilizing the reasonable person concept.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement and operationalize policies and procedures for pressure ulcer (wounds caused by pressure) prevention and management and care, including timely and appropriate wound identification for four residents (Resident #22, Resident #23, Resident #30, and Resident #37) of seven residents reviewed, resulting in a lack of proper identification and care of Resident #22's and Resident #23's pressure ulcers, Resident #30 developing an unstageable Deep Tissue Injury (DTI- area of damage to underlying tissue with unknown depth) pressure ulcer, and Resident #37 developing a DTI pressure ulcer, unnecessary pain, and the likelihood for further pressure ulcer development and a decline in overall condition.
Inspectors wroteResident #40: Record review revealed that resident #40 is [AGE] years old, admitted on [DATE], currently on hospice, has a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of a 6 indicating severe impairment. Resident #40 has diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), gait abnormalities, lack of coordination, repeated falls, unsteady on feet, major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. On 03/20/24 at 12:53 PM, record review of resident #40's fall reports revealed that resident #40 sustained falls on 4/19/23, 7/10/23, 7/12/23, 7/28/23, 7/30/23, 8/9/23, 8/14/23, 11/17/23 and 3/4/24. Eight of these falls were unwitnessed. Fall sustained on 7/10/23, resident #40 was observed on the floor in their room, resident #40 had self transferred, the fall was unwitnessed. Care plan interventions included a medication review and to use call light. BIMS was 10 indicating moderate impairment. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to effectively maintain food service equipment effecting 63 residents, resulting in the increased likelihood for cross-contamination and bacterial harborage.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to effectively clean and maintain the physical plant affecting 63 residents, resulting in the increased likelihood for cross-contamination, bacterial harborage, decreased illumination, and reduced air-quality.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow policies and procedures for medication labeling and medication storage in 2 of 3 medication carts reviewed, resulting in opened and undated multi-dose medications, and the likelihood for altered medication efficiency.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement and operationalize a comprehensive infection control program, encompassing outcome and process surveillance, accurate data collection, documentation, and analysis resulting in a lack of accurate and comprehensive infection control tracking, surveillance and data monitoring/analysis and the likelihood for spread of microorganisms and illness to all 62 facility residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to operationalize policies and procedure to ensure neglect was reported to the State Agency for one resident (Resident #216) of one resident reviewed, resulting in the lack of reporting of Resident #216 being pulled from the facility wheelchair van with the platform lift down and suffering multiple injuries including a cervical spinal fracture and the likelihood for additional unreported incidents of neglect and lack of thorough investigation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to comprehensively assess an indwelling urinary catheter upon admission for one resident (Resident #322) of one resident sampled for indwelling catheters.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that accurate resident information was completed on the Resident Roster Matrix (802) for two residents (Resident #46, Resident #322), resulting in the inaccurate assessment of the residents with a likelihood for unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan for one resident (Resident #322) of one resident sampled for baseline indwelling catheter care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop respite care plans for one resident (Resident #65,), resulting in the likelihood for the resident's psychosocial and care needs to be unmet.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to update or revise care plans with appropriate interventions for two residents (Resident #28, Resident #40), resulting in the likelihood for resident care needs being missed, prolonged illness or injury, recurrent falls and falls with major injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to have the resident's responsible party sign Against Medical Advice (AMA) discharge paperwork for one resident (Resident #63), resulting in a cognitively-impaired resident discharging from the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate assessment and implement a Restorative Nursing program for one resident (Resident #7) of two residents reviewed, resulting in a lack of accurate assessment and documentation of Range of Motion (ROM), a lack of implementation of Restorative Nursing services for a resident with a known contracture, further decline in ROM, and the likelihood for functional decline and avoidable pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to assess and maintain an indwelling urinary catheter for one resident (Resident #322) and prevent facility-acquired urinary tract infections for two residents (Resident#28, Resident #51, resulting in an indwelling catheter being left in place with no justifiable diagnosis.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement and operationalize policies and procedures to ensure informed consent for non-psychotropic medications used to treat mood and behavior disorders for one resident (Resident #10) of one resident reviewed for Depakote (anticonvulsant medication frequently used as a mood stabilizer), resulting in lack of consent for use and the potential for unnecessary and undesired medication use.
6 fire safety citations on file: 3 on April 22, 2026, 1 on March 6, 2025, 2 on March 25, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 24, 2024 | Fine | $50,895 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
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 | Michigan | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.67 | 3.99 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.90 | 0.78 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.13 | 3.50 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.29 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.48 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 27.6% | 44.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 54.5% | 39.2% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.43 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 3.89 on weekdays and 3.13 on weekends, 20% 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 3.57 in April to June 2025 to 3.67 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 | 3.67 | 0.90 | 3.89 | 3.13 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 66 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.75 | 0.87 | 3.97 | 3.21 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 63 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.52 | 0.63 | 3.68 | 3.11 | 0.0% | 1 of 92 | 66 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.57 | 0.70 | 3.77 | 3.07 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 67 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Michigan, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.95 | 0.70 | 4.14 | 3.45 | 3.3% | 0.4% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $19.03 | $18.35 to $21.59 | 43,290 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $31.47 | $29.83 to $35.52 | 10,880 |
| Registered nurses | $45.34 | $39.46 to $49.74 | 104,950 |
| 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 | Michigan | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.3 | 10.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.2 | 12.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.7 | 5.1 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.5 | 14.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 24.8 | 24.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 19.4 | 11.7 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for The Villa at Rose City's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (55.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
55.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Michigan: 89 better, 22 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. 88 eligible stays.
7.6% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Michigan: 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. 115 eligible stays.
5.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Michigan: 1 better, 1 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.
73.8% this home
Median of homes: Michigan57.6% · 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. 42 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Michigan0.0% · 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. 67 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Michigan1.3% · 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. 67 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Michigan99.5% · 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. 32 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: ROSE CITY OPCO LLC. CMS links this home to Villa Healthcare, a group of 21 nursing homes averaging 2.7 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Omnia Opco Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 07/01/2023 |
| Aaron, Jonathan | Corporate officer | Individual | 07/01/2023 | |
| Aaron, Jonathan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2023 | |
| Baumol, Yehoshua | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2023 | |
| Coffell, Marcie | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/29/2016 | |
| Graf, Marcella | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2023 | |
| Singerman, Joseph | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2023 | |
| Berger, Menachem | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 04/14/2025 | |
| Israel, Benjamin | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 04/14/2025 | |
| Kroll, Gabriel | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2025 | |
| Nagel, Steven | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2025 | |
| Stern, Todd | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 04/14/2025 | |
| Coffell, Marcie | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/29/2016 | |
| Singerman, Joseph | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/01/2023 |
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 Michigan. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.