T M C Hospice Aka Peppi’s House
A hospice in Tucson, Arizona 85712
2715 North Wyatt Drive, Tucson, Arizona 85712. (520) 307-6257.
Watch and the shortlist are kept with a free account, on every device. Your watch list. CMS’s own record is on Care Compare.
The short answer
Record last released by CMS on Oct 23, 2026.
- 20 deficiencies cited in the last three years
- 5of 5 family caregiver rating
- 10of 10 CMS’s Hospice Care Index
Each figure’s source sits beside it, in its section below.
What these words mean4
- Star ratings
- CMS rates some kinds of place from 1 to 5 stars, more stars meaning better on CMS’s own measures for that kind: for a nursing home, its health inspections, staffing and quality measures. A rating is CMS’s summary of those measures; it doesn’t promise good care. Source: CMS, Care Compare and the Five-Star Quality Rating System.
- Inspection (survey)
- A visit by state inspectors, often unannounced, who check a place against the rules it must meet. For nursing homes and other places Medicare pays, CMS calls these visits surveys: a standard survey of a nursing home comes at least every 15 months, and a complaint survey whenever a complaint calls for one. Source: CMS; 42 CFR 488.308.
- Deficiency, citation, violation
- What inspectors write up when a place didn’t meet a rule: the rule, what they saw, and when. CMS calls it a deficiency; states may say citation or violation. It is the inspectors’ finding, not a court’s, and the place is usually asked for a plan to correct it. Source: CMS, statement of deficiencies (Form CMS-2567); each state’s licensing agency.
- Condition-level deficiency
- For hospices, home health agencies, hospitals and dialysis facilities, CMS writes deficiencies at two levels. Standard is the usual one; condition-level is the more serious, when a problem is serious enough that the provider doesn’t meet a whole condition of taking part in Medicare. Source: CMS, State Operations Manual.
What did inspectors find?
20 deficiencies cited in the last three years
The middle of the 34 hospices serving ZIP code 85712 had 5.
The last inspection on record was on Aug 2, 2024: a follow-up inspection by The Joint Commission.
1 deficiency at condition level, the more serious of CMS’s two levels
CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.
CMS, Hospice ZIP Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
When those deficiencies happened
20 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Jun 2024. Most serious: Condition-level. The last 3 years, to Nov 5, 2026.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Dec | |||||||||||
| 2024 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2025 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2026 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov |
Hover or focus a month to read it.
Hearth Record drew this from the dates and levels in the source’s own records.
Each deficiency, as cited
Rule titles as CMS’s inspectors cite them, set in sentence case.
CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.
Jun 20, 2024: reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission20 deficiencies
-
Governing body and administrator (42 CFR 418.100(b))
“Observed in Leadership Session. During discussion with leadership and validated by the Hospice Director Hospice leaders and staff had not been accountable to assure continuous quality performance improvements. Example: During the survey process there had been multiple documentation and infection control areas that had not been monitored to assure compliance.”
-
Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(7))
The inspectors’ words, 92 words
“Observed in Tracer Activities. In 1 of 5 bereavement records reviewed, the organization had not completed bereavement assessments according to policy. The patient admitted to hospice 3/16/2024 and the patient’s date of death was 4/21/2024. The first documented bereavement assessment was done 5/2/2024. There was no documented bereavement assessment completed at the time of admission. The first bereavement assessment was completed 5 weeks post death. The organization’s policy states that an initial bereavement assessment will be completed at the time of admission and that it will be updated after the patient’s death.”
-
Patient outcome measures (42 CFR 418.54(e)(2))
The inspectors’ words, 137 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 6 home visits conducted, the organization failed to ensure the patient record was promptly and accurately documented. On review of RRHV#1 the documentation for the home observation visit reviewed noted documentation of a wound assessment to include measurements, and color of the wound and dressing change completed. On home observation the RN was not observed to assess the wound. On discussion with the RN he noted that he got the information from the patient caregiver as he gestured to him an approximate size with his hands and the RN used that information estimate measurements. There was no documentation in the record to indicate the documentation was based on the caregiver’s description and not an actual assessment by the RN. This observation was reviewed with the Manager of Patient Care Services.”
-
Plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(b ))
The inspectors’ words, 194 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 4 of 20 patient records reviewed, the organization failed to ensure thee individualized written plan of care is based on the patient’s goals that are specific, measurable, and time-bound. For example: on review of RRHV#1 there were goals that were no specific, measurable and time-bound such as: Patients wound will heal without s/s of infection – no achieve by date and Patient will maintain normal bowel patterns and control within the limits of disease progression.
example in RRHV#3 was Pt will remain as independent as possible, within limits of his/her disease, and will remain in a safe environment for the duration of hospice course. Many of the goals had time periods for until death or throughout hospice even when they were noted to be short term goals. In RRHV#4 an example was Patient will have no evidence of skin breakdown related to incontinence throughout hospice stay, however the goal was not individualized as the patient had an extensive sacral wound. In RRHV#6 examples of goals were Pt ecchymosis will heal thoroughly and Pt will have decreased nausea and vomiting. These observations were reviewed with the Manager of Patient Care Services.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(1))
The inspectors’ words, 234 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 4 of 20 patient records reviewed, the organization failed to ensure the plan of care included all services needed for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions. For example: on review of RRHV#4 during home observation with the patient and MSW one of the focuses of the visit was to ensure a smooth transition as the patient had recently been moved form one group home to another, however the transition was not reflected in the plan of care. In RRHV#1 documentation noted multiple changes in the patient’s wound as it was described to open and close frequently with differing treatments documented yet the changes were not reflected in the care plan as the goals and interventions had been established and remained unchanged since 2022. In RRHV#4 the patient had 2 episodes on GIP yet the GIP status was not reflected on the plan of care. Further, there was documentation that the suprapubic catheter was not patient and ordered to be replaced yet the changes were not reflected on the plan of care. In RRHV#5 the patient had neurogenic bladder requiring straight catheter multiple times daily yet was not reflected in the care plan. In RRHV#6 there was lower extremity edema and a fall documented yet the issues were not reflected in the care plans. These observation were reviewed with the Manager of Patient Care Services.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(4))
The inspectors’ words, 298 words
“Observed in Patient Home. In 3 of 6 home visits conducted, the organization failed to ensure the plan of care includes all services needed for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions. For example: on RRHV#1 home observation the RN and patient caregiver discussed the patient’s wound and dressings the caregiver was utilizing such as mepilex and a silver dressing yet there were no physicians orders noted on the record for the dressings being utilized. Further, the order for wound care on the care plan was noted to be incomplete as it simply stated twice weekly dressings and PRN/zinc oxide. There was no indications such as location, how to cleanse, of what type of dressing, who was to perform, and what situation to change as needed. In RRHV#2 the patient had multiple medications on the medication profile such as , Acetaminophen, Morphine, Tramadol, and Oxycodone listed for PRN use yet there were no specific instructions to guide the user as to which medication to use for what situation or type/severity of pain. In RRHV#4 there were three pain meds Acetaminophen, Morphine IR and Morphine liquid yet there were no instructions on which to use for what situation. These observations were reviewed with the Manager of Patient Care Services. Observed in Record Review. In 2 of 20 HOS patient records reviewed and confirmed by the Patient Care Manager. The patient plan of care had not been reflective of the assessed need. Example: During review of HOSrr# 5 the RN assessment had identified 4 plus edema with weeping, however the plan of care had not identified interventions to address the edema. HOSrr#4 the patient initial assessment had identified nausea and a G tube, however the plan of care had not identified interventions to be provided .”
-
Review of the plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(d))
The inspectors’ words, 230 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 19 HOS patient record reviewed and confirmed by the Patient Care Manager. The Plan of care had not been updated. Example: During review of HOSrr#4 had not been updated to show progress to goals. The initial plan had stated that an advanced directive would be in the patient chart in 5 days. The updated POC had not identified the progress to goal or goal met. Observed in Record Review. In 5 of 20 patient records reviewed, the organization failed to ensure plan of care revisions are based on information from updates to the patient’s comprehensive assessment and address progress toward goals. For example: on review of RRHV#1 there was noted goals that were established on admission in 2021 and remain unchanged throughout care IDG to IDG. An example noted Family/caregiver will verbalize understanding of how vital signs will change during the death/dying process within 5 days the goal was established in 2021. In RRHV#3 an example of a goal established on admission in 2022 and remained unchanged was Pt/family/caregiver will verbalize receiving emotional support during the next 2 weeks. There were many goals that had noted goal met week after week yet the goal remained in place without update to reflect changes. Further examples can be seen in RRHV#4, RRHV#5, and RRHV#6. These observations were reviewed with the Manager of Patient Care Services.”
-
Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(2))
The inspectors’ words, 200 words
“Observed in Patient Home. In 1 of 6 home visits conducted, the organization failed to ensure the patient care, treatment, and services were provided according to the patient’s individualized plan of care. For example: on review of RRHV#1 during the home observation the RN failed to assess and provide treatment for the patient wound as specified in the plan of care which stated to assess the skin integrity each visit. This observation was reviewed with the Manager of Patient Care Services, and the Director of Patient Care Services. Observed in Patient Home. In 1 of 6 home visits conducted, the organization failed to conduct and document a patient-specific comprehensive assessment and reassessment that identifies the patient’s need for hospice care and services for severity of symptoms. On RRHV#1 during home observation the RN discussed the patient’s wound with the caregiver yet did not perform an assessment of the wound even though the caregiver noted the wound had changed as he noted it was previously open but now the skin was intact. The care plan noted the wound would be assessed twice weekly. This observation was reviewed with the Director of Patient Care Services, and the Manager of Patient care services.”
-
Prevention (42 CFR 418.60(a))
The inspectors’ words, 411 words
“Observed in Patient Home. In 3 of 6 home visits conducted, the organization failed to implement the infection prevention and control activities it had planned. For example: on home observation for RRHV#1 it was noted that the RN gathered all trash used during the visit and removed form the home and place the trash in the back of the clinician’s car. The organizations bag technique policy HO-01067 states when visit is complete, dispose of non-permeable barrier and waste generated during visit in the patient’s household trash. The process of removing trash generated during visit and remove from the home by the clinician was also seen in RRHV#4, and RRHV#5. These observations were reviewed with the Manager and Director of Patient Care Services. Observed in Patient Home. In 1 of 6 home visits conducted, the organization failed to ensure they implemented the infection prevention and control activities had planned. For example: on home observation at RRHV#1 the RN failed to perform hand hygiene as specified in policy IC-01-152 and it was noted throughout care the clinician had multiple missed opportunities for hand hygiene such as after contact with inanimate objects (including medical equipment) in the immediate vicinity of the patient. The RN was observed to no perform hand hygiene after reaching for medication bottles, and later after removing trash form the patient home. Further, multiple time throughout the providing patient care the clinician reached for his phone, and used pen and returned to pocket. These observations were reviewed with the Manager and Director of Patient Care Services. 





 Observed in Individual Tracer. In 1 of 3 HOS IPU patients and confirmed by the Patient Care Manager. Staff had not followed its infection control protocol for hand hygiene based on organization policy and CDC guidelines. Example: During observation of a Patient Care Tech providing a bed bath to a patient in the IPU . The Patient Care Tech frequently changed gloves during patient care, but hand not cleansed his hands between glove changes . Observed in Patient Home. In 1 of 6 home visits conducted, the organization failed to implement infection prevention and control activities when cleaning and performing disinfection of medical supplies and devices. On home observation for RRHV#2 it was noted that the RN cleansed the laptop used during the visit but failed to allow for contact/dry of the manufacturer’s guidelines as specified in the organization policy HO-01-67. This observation was reviewed with the Manager, and Director of Patient Care Services.”
-
Control (42 CFR 418.60(b)(2)(i))
“Observed in Infection Control System Tracer. During review and discussion of the infection control plan and program, it had been identified that the infectious risks based on the population served and geographic area had been limited to the inpatient unit. Infectious risks had not been identified for the in home patients. Confirmed by the Hospice Director.”
-
Counseling services (42 CFR 418.64(d)(1)(iv))
The inspectors’ words, 91 words
“Observed in Tracer Activities. In 1 of 5 bereavement records reviewed, the organization had not developed a bereavement plan of care that specified the type of services to be offered or the frequency of the services. The organization had completed initial and post mortem bereavement assessments, but failed to develop a plan of care for the bereaved. The post mortem assessment was completed September 14, 2023, as of June 2024, no bereavement services were documented. The finding was reviewed with the lead social worker at the time of the record review.”
-
Competency evaluation (42 CFR 418.76(c)(1))
“Observed in HR File Review. During the competency review session, the surveyor noted that a hospice aide (patient care tech) had not completed an annual evaluation. The supervisor had not completed an observational evaluation. All 2023 documented aide competencies were by written exam. This finding was discussed with the manager of the unit at the time of discovery.”
-
Hospice aide assignments and duties (42 CFR 418.76(g)(1))
The inspectors’ words, 176 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 20 patient records reviewed, the organization failed to ensure the RN provide written patient care instruction for the hospice aide. On Review of RRHV#4 the hospice aide plan of care did not cover any tasks related to the aides visit yet included wound care orders, to which the Manager of Patient Care Services noted the aide was not providing wound care. The aide’s documented assisted with a bed bath. The patient had extensive wounds, suprapubic catheter, and colostomy yet there were no instructions of how to handle these while providing care. This observation was reviewed with the Manager of Patient Care Services. Observed in Record Review. During review of 3 of 20 Hospice active records and confirmed by the Patient Care Coordinator. The Home Health Aide plan of care had not been complete to include specific bathing to be provided. Example: HOSrr#10, HOSrr#11 and HOSrr#12 had documented for the HHA to provide personal care per RN direction . Bathing had not specified what type of bath to be provided.”
-
Hospice aide assignments and duties (42 CFR 418.76(g)(2)(ii))
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 20 patient records reviewed, the organization failed to ensure the hospice aide provide services that are ordered. On review of RRHV#4 the aide documented that the patient was assisted with a bed bath yet there was no order for a bath on the aide plan of care. This observation was reviewed with the Manager of Patient Care Services.”
-
Serving the hospice patient and family (42 CFR 418.100(a)(1))
“Observed in Patient Home. In 1 of 6 home visits conducted, the organization failed to respect, protect, and promote the patient’s rights. For example: on home observation for RRHV#3, the Chaplain conduced the patient spiritual care visit in the ALF lobby or gathering room with multiple other residents and visitors nearby and able to overhear patient visit and did not provide for patient privacy. This observation was reviewed with the Chaplain and the Manager and Director of Patient Care Services.”
-
Training (42 CFR 418.100(g)(1))
“Observed in HR File Review. During a review of competencies, the surveyor noted that the organization had not provided hospice philosophy orientation to the physical therapist. The therapists are employed by the hospital and per the hospice director, all therapy would be provided by the hospital therapists. The hospital therapists were not provided orientation to the hospice unit. This finding was discussed with the Executive Director of Human Resources at the time of discovery.”
-
Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(7))
The inspectors’ words, 151 words
“Observed in Patient Home. In 1 of 6 home visits conducted, the organization failed to ensure the patient record contain all information that reflects the patient’s care, treatment and services. On home observation of RRHV#1 on review of the medication profile the it was noted that there was no oxygen in the home and caregiver stated it had been discontinued and removed form the home yet the order for oxygen remained on the medication profile. The caregiver also stated that the diazepam and mirtazapine that were on the medication profile had not been given in some time and were no longer in the home. Further, on discussion with the caregiver he directed us to a box full of ointments and bottles and stated that many were probably not on the medication profile but he uses them as needed. These observations were reviewed with the Manager and Director of Patient Care services.”
-
Discharge or transfer of care (42 CFR 418.104(e)(3)(i))
“Observed in Record Review. During review of Hospice live discharge records and confirmed by the Patient Care Manager. A discharge summary had not been competed after the patient had revoked care, Example: During reiew of HOS live d/c #1 the patient had revoked care to seek aggressive treatment. A discharge summary had not been completed to include a summary of care, treatments, plan of care .”
-
Criminal background checks (42 CFR 418.114(d)(1))
“Observed in Document Review. During the review of the organization’s contract with a pharmacy, the surveyor noted that there was not a stipulation that the pharmacy will complete criminal background checks on contracted employees who provide direct patient care or have access to patient records. This finding was discussed with the hospice director at the time of discovery.”
-
N/a (42 CFR 418.110(d)(1)(i))
“Observed in Building Tour. During Hospice House tour it had been observed that all penetrations for the smoke wall in the electrical room had not been properly sealed. Example: There had been a penetration of a pipe. This had been confirmed by hospice house maintenance. This finding was observed during survey activity, but corrected onsite prior to the surveyor’s departure. The corrective action taken needs to be included in the organization’s Evidence of Standards Compliance submission.”
All 2 inspections in the last three years
| Date | Visit | What the record says |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 2, 2024 | Follow-up inspection by The Joint Commission | No deficiencies cited |
| Jun 20, 2024 | Reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission | 20 deficiencies cited |
Is it certified?
- Medicare-certified hospice since Jul 9, 1992.
- Ownership: other.
- Cited at For hospices, home health agencies, hospitals and dialysis facilities, CMS writes deficiencies at two levels. Standard is the usual one; condition-level is the more serious, when a problem is serious enough that the provider doesn’t meet a whole condition of taking part in Medicare. Source: CMS, State Operations Manual. in the last three years: it didn’t meet a whole condition of Medicare’s rules.
CMS, Hospice General Information. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.
Has anything been proven against it?
- CMS doesn’t publish fines or other penalties for hospices, so none are shown.
- 0 deficiencies cited in the last three years came from inspections that included a complaint investigation.
CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.
Who does the caring?
- From Medicare claims (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024): 11 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 7% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 98.6% of patients who died.
- Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 62% at home, 27% in assisted living, 1% in a skilled nursing facility, 10% in an inpatient hospice, 1% elsewhere.
CMS, Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Measure | This provider |
|---|---|
| Nurse care minutes per routine home care day | 11.0 min |
| Skilled nursing minutes at weekends | 7% |
| Visits near death | 98.6% of patients who died |
Who owns it?
- Tucson Medical Center owns 100% directly since Jan 1, 1996.
- 23 owners or officers are people: Judith Rich (runs it (operational or managerial control), 100%); Jay A Katz (corporate director, 0%); Alex Horvath (corporate officer, 0%); Rick A Anderson (corporate officer, 0%); Judith Rich (corporate officer); Judith Rich (managing employee (on the payroll)); Alan K Rogers (corporate director, 0%); Eduardo A Leon (corporate director); Kevin Kilday (corporate officer, 0%); Julia Strange (corporate officer, 0%); Louise L Francesconi (corporate director); Michael W Bracht (corporate director, 0%); Jon Young (corporate director); Gay Tosch (corporate director, 0%); Frank Marini (corporate officer); David Cohen (corporate director, 0%); Michael J Duran (corporate officer, 0%); Timothy Hartin (corporate officer, 0%); Steve Reichling (corporate officer, 0%); Richard Prevallet (corporate officer, 0%); Stephen Bush (corporate officer); Henry Boice (corporate director); Karen Mlawsky (corporate officer, 0%).
- No private-equity firm among the owners CMS lists.
- No real-estate investment trust among the owners CMS lists.
CMS, Hospice All Owners and Hospice Enrollments. Released Sep 29, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Organisation | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tucson Medical Center | Owns 5% or more directly | 100% | Jan 1, 1996 |
What do families say?
- Family caregivers rate it 5 of 5 in CMS’s survey (Oct 1, 2023 to Sep 30, 2025): 90% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 93% would definitely recommend it.
- CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 10 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
- 85.52% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 58.9% had visits from a nurse or social worker on at least 2 of their last 3 days (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
CMS, CAHPS Hospice Survey and Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Measure | Rating |
|---|---|
| Family caregiver survey ratingCMS star rating from its survey of patients’ family caregivers, 1 to 5 | 5 of 5 |
| Hospice Care IndexCMS’s Hospice Care Index, 0 to 10 (higher is better): a point for each of ten measures from Medicare claims on which the hospice meets CMS’s threshold | 10 of 10 |
How does it compare nearby?
- Of the 34 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 85712, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 5; this one had 20.
CMS, Hospice ZIP Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Place | Deficiencies, 3 years |
|---|---|
| T M C Hospice Aka Peppi’s House This hospice | 20 |
| Arista Hospice | Not given |
| Grace Hospice and Palliative Care LLC | 6 |
| Copper State Hospice Inc. | 5 |
| Sunset Hospice LLC | 8 |
| Anthem East LLC | 5 |
| Prestige Health Hospice | 16 |
| Bayada Hospice | Not given |
| Positive Nature Hospice LLC | 7 |
| Hospice in the Desert LLC | 6 |
| Amedisys Hospice | 6 |
| Casa De La Luz Hospice | 5 |
What the record doesn’t say
- CMS doesn’t publish fines or other penalties for hospices, so none are shown.
- Only complaints that led to a citation appear; complaints that didn’t aren’t published.
- CMS ended its Special Focus Program for hospices with serious problems on Feb 14, 2025, so no hospice is marked as one.
- Hospice quality measures have a gap from October 2025: CMS replaced its patient assessment then, and public results from the new one (HOPE) are expected around November 2027.
Sources
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice General Information (yc9t-dgbk).
Released Aug 26, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice Provider Data (252m-zfp9).
Released Aug 26, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CAHPS Hospice Survey (gxki-hrr8).
Released Aug 26, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, QCOR hospice inspection reports (Hospice Survey Reports - Oct 2021 through Sep 2026.xlsx).
Released Oct 23, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice All Owners (e983965e-1603-4cb8-82b5-c40090e380d1).
Released Sep 29, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice Enrollments (25704213-e833-4b8b-9dbc-58dd17149209).
Released Sep 29, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice ZIP Data (95rg-2usp).
Released Aug 26, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
If you believe something here is wrong, a correction starts with the agency whose record this copies: CMS. CMS’s own record is on Care Compare. If Hearth Record copied something wrongly, it will fix it and log the correction publicly, with its date: how corrections work.
This copy of the record was made on Nov 5, 2026.
From the hospice
The public record above comes first. Anything the hospice adds will appear here, below it, and say who wrote it.
Replies
None. Replies aren’t open yet. When they open, the hospice will be able to answer any finding for free, and the reply will show beside that finding, unedited and dated.
Paid listing
None. Paid listings aren’t open yet. When they open, anything paid for will say “Paid by the hospice”, and paying will never change a finding, a rating or the order of results.