Kh Prime Hospice Care
A hospice in Sacramento, California 95815
2180 Harvard Street, Suite 330, Sacramento, California 95815. (916) 809-7027.
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. We couldn’t read Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ list since Oct 27, 2026: qcor.cms.gov now refuses our reader. This record is as of then.
- 32 deficiencies cited in the last three years
- Not rated family caregiver rating
- Not available CMS’s Hospice Care Index
Each figure’s source sits beside it, in its section below.
What these words mean3
- 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?
32 deficiencies cited in the last three years
The middle of the 35 hospices serving ZIP code 95815 had 7.
The last inspection on record was on Sep 8, 2026: a complaint inspection by the state.
5 deficiencies 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
32 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Jan 2026. Most serious: Condition-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 27, 2026.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Nov | 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 |
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.
Jan 23, 2026: reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission32 deficiencies
-
Patients rights (42 CFR 418.52)
“Observed in Patient Home. In 1 out of 1 home visits conducted, the organization failed to respect, protect, and promote the patient’s right to and need for effective communication. For example, during the home visit for RRHV#1, the patient and family were primarily Spanish-speaking and verbally requested Spanish-speaking staff during the course of the visit. However, the staff provided did not speak the patient’s preferred language and had limited ability to translate through the use of the patient’s granddaughter. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator.”
-
Phys, occupnl therapy & speech-lang pathology (42 CFR 418.72)
The inspectors’ words, 108 words
“Observed in Tracer Activities. During review of the organization’s contracted services, the organization failed to provide for its planned scope and level of care, treatment, or services. For example, during the contract review, it was noted that the organization did not have a contract or arrangement for physical therapy (PT), occupational therapy (OT), and speech language pathology (SLP) services. Upon further review, there was no evidence of direct employees that the organization maintained to provide PT, OT, and SLP services. Furthermore, the administrator shared that these services were not provided or applicable to the patients served by the organization. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator.”
-
Governing body and administrator (42 CFR 418.100(b))
The inspectors’ words, 177 words
“Observed in Tracer Activities. There was no evidence that the governing body and leadership had consistently implemented policies and procedures to support the patient care, treatment, and services as evidenced by condition level deficiencies at §418.54, §418.102, §418.116, §418.72, §418.104, §418.100, §418.58, §418.78, and §418.52. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator. Observed in Leadership Session. During Leadership session it was noted the Governing Body had not ensured an Administrator was appointed for the day-to-day operations of the hospice. For example: review of the only Governing Body minutes from 2023 and the prior owners revealed an Administrator that was no longer with the organization. The new owner/Administrator was unable to provide documentation the current Governing Body had appointed an Administrator. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator/owner. Observed in Leadership Session. During Leadership it was noted the organization’s new owners did not have an annual operating budget for the past year nor did they have a governing body to oversee and approve a budget. This was discussed, reviewed, and validated with the Administrator.”
-
Clinical records (42 CFR 418.104)
The inspectors’ words, 344 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 2 of 14 patient records reviewed, During RRNHV# 9 and RRNHV# 6’s patient records review it was noted the organization had not maintained complete patient records. For example: during RRNHV# 9’s patient record review it was noted the Election of Benefit (EOB) and Patient Consent forms were not present in the electronic medical record (EMR) or the paper medical record. The Administrator shared the documents had been scanned from home and not upload with the original documents at home and not in the RRNHV# 9’s medical records at the time of the surveyor review of the record. Review of RRNHV# 6’s EMR revealed no documentation of an EOB or Patient Consent form. The Administrator stated the original documents were on a different computer at home. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator. Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 14 patient records reviewed, During RRNHV# 9’s patient record review it was noted the organization had not ensured it maintained complete and accurate patient records. For example: review of RRNHV# 9’s start of care RN comprehensive assessment revealed documentation that an additional assessment was completed two days in the future of the RN signature date. Further review of RRNHV# 9’s patient record revealed a SN visit note dated two days after the start of care with documentation that the SN visit note was signed by the DPCS for the clinician that completed the assessment. Audit trails was requested and not provided. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator. Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 14 patient records reviewed, During RRNHV# 8’s patient record review it was noted the organization did not ensure staff followed the organization policy Entries into the Clinical Record No.5-006.2, that included hospice personnel providing direct patient care and supervisory functions have authority to make entries into the clinical record. For example: review of RRNHV# 8’s patient record revealed a discharge summary signed by HR# 5/Community Liason with no direct patient care responsibilities. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator.”
-
Federal, state, local laws & regulations (42 CFR 418.116)
“Observed in Regulatory Review. Review of the organization’s State Health Department License revealed that the license had expired 37 days prior to the surveyor arrival to the organization. The organization provided a Cashier’s Check to the state for licensure issued three days after the licensed had expired and provided a Federal Express receipt that was dated four days after the license had expired with no other documents to verify the State Health Department had renewed the organization’s license. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator.”
-
EP Training Program (42 CFR 418.113(d)(1)(i))
The inspectors’ words, 98 words
“Observed in HR File Review. In 3 out of 9 personnel records reviewed, the organization failed to ensure that emergency management education had been provided to their staff. For example, in review of HR#1, the medical director had no evidence of emergency management training upon hire in 2024 or annual training in 2025. In review of HR#7, the Director of Patient Care Services (DPCS) did not have annual training for 2025. In review of HR#9, the alternate medical director did not have annual training for 2023, 2024, and 2025. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator.”
-
Exercise of rights/respect for proprty/person (42 CFR 418.52(b)(1)(i))
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 out 14 records reviewed, the organization failed to respect the patient’s right to revoke hospice care. For example, in the record review for RRNHV#2, the patient revoked hospice services to seek aggressive treatment at an inpatient facility, however, there was no evidence that the organization had received a signed revocation form from the patient or their representative. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator.”
-
Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(5))
The inspectors’ words, 117 words
“Observed in Patient Home. In 1 of 1 home visits conducted, it was noted the organization did not maintain confidential patient records in accordance with privacy and security standards of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). For example: during RRHV# 1’s home observation RRNHV# 9’s medical record binder with RRNHV# 9’s name on the outside of the medical record binder and hospital admission records located in the binder was found on the coffee table in the living room of RRHV# 1’s home. The Administrator shared he brought RRNHV# 9’s medical record binder to RRHV# 1’s home approximately one hour prior to the surveyors home observation and thought it was the patient folder for RRHV# 1.”
-
Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(7))
“Observed in Record Review. In 3 out of 14 records reviewed, the organization failed to ensure that the patient was provided with information about the services covered under the hospice benefit. For example, during the record review for RRNHV#3, RRDC#2, and RRBR#1, there was no evidence that the organization had obtained signed consent forms or hospice election forms from the patient or their representative. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator.”
-
Timeframe for completion of assessment (42 CFR 418.54(b))
“Observed in Record Review. In 2 out of 14 records reviewed, the organization failed to ensure that it assessed the patient and patient’s condition according to defined time frames. For example, in record review for RRNHV#4, the psychosocial assessment was completed seven (7) days after the election of hospice care. In the record review of RRDC#2, the psychosocial assessment was completed 12 days after the election of hospice care. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator.”
-
Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(8))
“Observed in Record Review. In 3 out of 14 records reviewed, the organization failed to assess its patients. For example, in record review of RRNHV#2, RRNHV#3, and RRBR#1, there was no evidence that the organization had completed a psychosocial assessment. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator.”
-
Update of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(d))
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 14 patient records reviewed, During RRNH# 8’s patient record review it was noted the organization did not ensure the RN updated the comprehensive assessment no less than every 15 days. For example: review of RRNHV# 8’s patient record revealed an LVN conducted all the assessment for RRNHV# 8 after the start of care or for approximately 28 days. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator.”
-
Patient outcome measures (42 CFR 418.54(e)(2))
The inspectors’ words, 123 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 14 out of 14 records reviewed, the organization failed to maintain complete and accurate patient records. For example, in all records reviewed, an oxygen safety assessment had completed, however, none of the patients had orders for oxygen and no documentation that indicated oxygen was in use. Upon further review, all assessments included detailed education that was provided to the patients regarding the specific equipment in their home setting such as, Instructed patient to keep their oxygen tanks away from gas stoves, Provided demonstration on safe oxygen storage in an upright position, Patient performed correct return demonstration of oxygen use, and Patient/representative verbalized correct procedure for utilizing emergency oxygen tank. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(1))
The inspectors’ words, 192 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 2 of 14 patient records reviewed, During RRNHV# 8 and RRNHV# 6’s patient record review it was noted the organization did not ensure the plan of care included interventions to manage pain and symptoms. For example: review of RRNHV# 8’s RN comprehensive assessment revealed RRNHV# 8 had difficulty swallowing and was on a mechanical soft diet. However, review of RRNHV# 8’s plan of care and updates to the plan of care revealed no intervention for mechanical soft diet. Review of RRNHV# 6’s RN comprehensive assessment revealed RRNHV# 6 had difficulty swallowing and was on a puree diet and thickened liquids. However, review of RRNHV# 6’s plan of care and updated plan of care revealed no interventions for a puree diet or thickened liquids. Further review of RRNHV# 6’s patient record revealed RRNHV# 6 had a pressure ulcer to the coccyx and it was being cleaned with normal saline and a duoderm was being applied by the nurse during visits and by the family daily. However, review of RRNHV# 6’s plan of care revealed no interventions for wound care. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator.”
-
Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(4))
The inspectors’ words, 126 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 out of 14 records reviewed, the organization failed to provide for its planned scope and level of care, treatment, or services. For example, in the record review for RRNHV#1, the Medical Social Worker (MSW) noted in their initial psychosocial assessment that the patient reported 10/10 pain during the visit. Upon further review, the MSW noted that they would report the change in condition to the hospice, however, there was no evidence that the hospice IDG or physician was notified. There were no documented communication notes indicating that the MSW reported the change in condition, and the next visit from a hospice team member occurred three days later by a skilled nurse. This was discussed, reviewed, and validated by the administrator.”
-
Program data (42 CFR 418.58(b)(2)(i))
“Observed in Leadership Session. During the leadership and data system tracer, the organization failed to use data to monitor the effectiveness and safety of services and the quality of care. For example, the organization was unable to provide evidence that they used their collected data to monitor the effectiveness and safety of services and the quality of care for 2025. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator.”
-
Program data (42 CFR 418.58(b)(2)(ii))
“Observed in Leadership Session. During the leadership and data system tracer, the organization failed to use the results of data analysis to identify improvement opportunities. For example, the organization had collected performance improvement data for 2025, however, they had no evidence that they identified improvement opportunities from the data. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator.”
-
Program activities (42 CFR 418.58(c)(3))
The inspectors’ words, 181 words
“Observed in Leadership Session. During the leadership and data system tracer, the organization failed to act when it did not achieve or sustain planned improvements. Because the organization did not have evidence of any performance improvement activities for 2025, there was no evidence that it acted when planned improvements were not achieved or sustained. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator. Observed in Leadership Session. During the leadership and data system tracer, the organization failed to act on improvement priorities. For example, the organization did not identify any improvement priorities for 2025. Because they did not identify any improvement priorities, they could not act on them. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator. Observed in Leadership Session. During the leadership and data system tracer, the organization failed to evaluate actions to confirm that they resulted in improvements. For example, the organization had no evidence that they completed any performance improvement activities for 2025, and could not demonstrate any evaluation of their actions to confirm they resulted in improvement. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator.”
-
Performance improvement projects (42 CFR 418.58(d)(1))
“Observed in Leadership Session. During the leadership and data system tracer, the organization failed to improve performance. For example, the organization had no evidence that it determined the number and scope of annual improvement projects based on patients’ needs and organizational needs for 2025. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator.”
-
Performance improvement projects (42 CFR 418.58(d)(2))
“Observed in Leadership Session. During the leadership and data system tracer, the organization failed to improve performance. For example, the organization had no documented performance improvement projects for the year 2025. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator.”
-
Education (42 CFR 418.60(c))
The inspectors’ words, 98 words
“Observed in HR File Review. In 3 out of 9 personnel records reviewed, the organization failed to ensure that bloodborne pathogen education had been provided to their staff. For example, in review of HR#1, the medical director had no evidence of bloodborne pathogen training upon hire in 2024 or annual training in 2025. In review of HR#7, the Director of Patient Care Services (DPCS) did not have annual training for 2025. In review of HR#9, the alternate medical director did not have annual training for 2023, 2024, and 2025. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator.”
-
Competency evaluation (42 CFR 418.76(c)(5))
“Observed in HR File Review. In 2 of 9 HR files reviewed, During HR# 9 and HR# 8’s HR file review it was noted the organization did not ensure competence was evaluated per organization policy Competence Assessment No. 1-008.1 that included competence evaluation annually. For example: review of HR# 9/Alternate Medical Director’s HR file revealed unsigned annual competence evaluation for 2024 and 2025. Review of HR# 8/MSW’s HR file revealed an unsigned competence evaluation for 2024. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the HR Administrative Assistant and the Administrator.”
-
Recruiting and retaining (42 CFR 418.78(c))
“Observed in Tracer Activities. During the volunteer system tracer, the organization failed to provide services that meet patient needs. For example, the organization had no evidence of volunteer recruitment and retention efforts for the year 2025. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator.”
-
Cost saving (42 CFR 418.78(d))
“Observed in Tracer Activities. During the volunteer system tracer, the organization failed to provide services that meet patient needs. For example, the organization had no evidence of the cost savings achieved through the use of volunteers for the year 2025. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator.”
-
Level of activity (42 CFR 418.78(e))
“Observed in Tracer Activities. During the volunteer system tracer, the organization failed to provide services that meet patient needs. For example, the organization had no evidence to demonstrate that volunteer staff provide day-to-day administrative or direct patient care in an amount that equals 5% of the total patient care hours of all paid hospice employees and contracted staff for 2025. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator.”
-
Training (42 CFR 418.100(g)(3))
The inspectors’ words, 144 words
“Observed in HR File Review. In 1 of 9 HR files reviewed, During HR# 8’s HR file review it was noted the organization did not ensured competence was assessed as part of the orientation. For example: review of HR#8/MSW’s HR file revealed no evidence of an initial competence evaluation. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the HR Administrative Assistant and Administrator. Observed in HR File Review. In 1 out of 9 personnel records reviewed, the organization failed to ensure that staff competence is initially assessed. For example, in the review of HR#2, there was no evidence that the organization completed initial competencies for the Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN). The LVN had been employed for approximately one month, however, no competencies had been performed. Furthermore, the LVN was observed during RRHV#1 working independently without supervision. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator.”
-
Initial certification of terminal illness (42 CFR 418.102(b)(5))
The inspectors’ words, 134 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 15 patient records reviewed, During RRNHV# 8’s patient record review it was noted the organization did not ensure the initial Certification of Terminal Illness (CTI) included medical management of the patient’s conditions unrelated to the terminal condition. For example: review of the initial revealed a copy and pasted LCD Guideline from the start of care RN comprehensive assessment that included possible signs and symptoms the patient was not experiencing such as a. Aspiration pneumonia in the past 12 months?, d. Decubitis ulcer stage 3 or 4 in the past 12 months?, and f. Inability to maintain sufficient fluid and calorie intake with 10% weight loss during the previous six months or serum albumin less than (<) 2.5 gm/dl?. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator.”
-
Recertification of the terminal illness (42 CFR 418.102(c))
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 2 patient records reviewed, with recertification of terminal illness. During RRNHV# 7’s patient record review it was noted the organization did not ensure the Medical Director reviewed the clinical information and signed the certification of terminal illness (CTI) prior to the recertification. For example: review of RRNHV# 7’s patient record revealed four recertification CTI. Review of the recertification CTIs revealed 3 out of 4 recertifications were signed after the recertification date. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator.”
-
Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(3))
The inspectors’ words, 132 words
“Observed in Patient Home. In 1 out of 1 home visits conducted, the organization failed to ensure that the patient record contains information that reflects the patient’s care, treatment, or services. For example, during the home visit conducted for RRHV#1, the nurse was observed performing a medication reconciliation. During the reconciliation, the following medications were included on the medication profile, but not present in the home; Timolol Malate 0.5% ophthalmic solution. Upon further discussion, the daughter shared that those medications were discontinued three months prior to the patient’s admission to hospice. Furthermore, during the reconciliation, the following medications were present in the home, but not included on the medication profile; Refresh Eye Drops, Vicks Nasal Saline Spray, and Omeprazole 40 mg DR capsules. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator.”
-
Authentication (42 CFR 418.104(b))
The inspectors’ words, 117 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 2 out of 14 records reviewed, the organization failed to ensure that entries in the patient record are authenticated. For example, in the record review for RRNHV#5, the consent forms and hospice election date were left blank. Upon further review of the documents, the patient, representative, and organization’s witness had left no identifying date of when the document was signed and when the hospice election was to take effect. In the record review for RRNHV#2, the signed hospice election form had an election date that was dated two (2) days after the RN comprehensive assessment and start of care date had been completed. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator.”
-
Discharge or transfer of care (42 CFR 418.104(e)(2)(i))
The inspectors’ words, 122 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 4 out of 14 records reviewed, the organization failed to ensure that the patient’s attending physician received a copy of the hospice discharge summary. For example, in record review of RRNHV#2, the patient was hospitalized and there was no evidence that the receiving facility had received a copy of the discharge summary. In record review of RRDC#1 and RRNHV#4, the patients had transferred to another hospice, however, there was no evidence that the discharge summary was sent to the receiving provider. In record review of RRDC#2, the patient refused further services, however, there was no evidence that the discharge summary had been sent to the patient’s attending physician. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the administrator.”
-
Criminal background checks (42 CFR 418.114(d)(1))
“Observed in HR File Review. In 2 of 9 HR files reviewed, During HR# 2 and HR# 8’s HR file review it was noted the organization did not obtain a criminal background check. For example: review of HR# 2/LVN’s and HR# 8/MSW’s HR files revealed no evidence a criminal background check had been completed. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the HR and Administrator.”
All 3 inspections in the last three years
| Date | Visit | What the record says |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 8, 2026 | Complaint inspection by the state | No deficiencies cited |
| Mar 6, 2026 | Follow-up inspection by The Joint Commission | No deficiencies cited |
| Jan 23, 2026 | Reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission | 32 deficiencies cited |
Is it certified?
- Medicare-certified hospice since Oct 7, 2022.
- CMS doesn’t list its type of ownership.
- 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?
- CMS hasn’t published nursing time from Medicare claims for this hospice.
- Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 86% at home, 13% in assisted living.
CMS, Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
Who owns it?
- 8 owners or officers are people: Hussam Kujok (owns 5% or more directly, 50%); Shadi Khattab (owns 5% or more directly, 50%); Hussam Kujok (corporate officer); Hussam Kujok (corporate director); Hussam Kujok (runs it (operational or managerial control)); Melissa Meibert (managing employee (on the payroll)); Shadi Khattab (corporate officer); Shadi Khattab (corporate director).
- 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.
What do families say?
- CMS gives no family caregiver survey rating: “The number of cases is too small to report Star Ratings.”
- CMS gives no Hospice Care Index for this hospice.
CMS, CAHPS Hospice Survey and Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
How does it compare nearby?
- Of the 35 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 95815, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 7; this one had 32.
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 |
|---|---|
| Prohealth Home Care, Inc. | 10 |
| American River Hospice Services | 4 |
| Ahc Home Care of Sacramento | 6 |
| Kh Prime Hospice Care This hospice | 32 |
| New Era Hospice, Inc. | 3 |
| Kaiser Foundation Hospital - Hospice | 3 |
| Vitas Healthcare Corporation of California | 1 |
| Advanced Home Health and Hospice, Inc. | 5 |
| Suncrest Hospice Sacramento, LLC | 8 |
| Sonder Hospice Care | 5 |
| Sanctuary Hospice | 7 |
| Monarch Hospice and Palliative Care | 13 |
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 Oct 27, 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 Oct 27, 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 Oct 27, 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 Oct 27, 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 Oct 27, 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 Oct 27, 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 Oct 27, 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.