First Choice Home Health & Hospice
A hospice in Boise, Idaho 83709
12400 West Overland Road, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho 83709. (208) 322-4663.
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.
- 14 deficiencies cited in the last three years
- 4of 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?
14 deficiencies cited in the last three years
The middle of the 23 hospices serving ZIP code 83709 had 5.
The last inspection on record was on Oct 21, 2025: 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
14 deficiencies in 2 months of the last 36. Last cited Oct 2025. 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.
Oct 21, 2025: follow-up inspection by The Joint Commission3 deficiencies
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))
The inspectors’ words, 242 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 3 of 6 patient records reviewed, the written plan of care (POC) was not based on the patient’s goals and the time frames, settings, and services required to meet those goals. In the chart for RR#1, the goals on the POC were not measurable nor time based. Examples included medications will be managed appropriately as evidenced by steady symptom control. Patient...staff will verbalize appropriate pain management. There was no goal for bowel management despite Colon CA diagnosis, narcotics and orders for bowel management meds. In the chart for RR#2, the plan of care was revised to include a goal for a new problem of 2+edema, yet the goal was not measurable nor time-based and read DECREASE EDEMA AND IMPROVE COMFORT Lasix had been added to the POC. Another new problem INCREASED ANXIETY WITH DECREASED ABILITY TO SWALLOW. The POC changed to liquid Lorazepam Goal IMPROVE PATIENT COMFORT was not measurable nor time-based. The patient had a pressure relief mattress and a history of pressure ulcers. There was no goal on the POC related to pressure ulcer prevention measures. The clinical visit documentation addressed these issues and included assessments regarding progress. In the chart for RR#4, the patient was at risk for falls, was on high risk medications, had a bowel program initiated at the time of admit, yet there were no goals on the POC related to these items. This was discussed with the Administrator and DON.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(4))
The inspectors’ words, 143 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 2 of 6 patient records reviewed, the plan of care (POC) did not include all treatments necessary to meet the patient’s needs. In the chart for RR#2, the patient has a pressure relief mattress which is identified in the assessments, yet this intervention is not on the hospice POC. In the chart for RR#4, the RN indicated that walker use, and safety measures are in place for falls precautions, yet there were no patient specific interventions on the POC. Additionally, during the admission, the assessment revealed that the caregiver takes the patient’s blood sugar as needed, yet this intervention is not on the POC, nor is there any indication that this was discontinued at the time of admission to hospice. The order for oxygen was not added to the POC. This was discussed with the DON and Administrator.”
-
Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(7))
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 6 patient records reviewed, the patient record did not contain any medications administered, including dose. In the chart for RR#5, during a RN visit, the nurse documented prn Morphine, Lorazepam and Hyoscyamine administered on this visit. This was discussed with the DON and Administrator.”
Sep 12, 2025: reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission11 deficiencies
-
Governing body and administrator (42 CFR 418.100(b))
“Observed in Tracer Activities. There was evidence that the governing body and leadership had not established requirements to support patient care treatment and services as evidenced by Condition level observations at 418.56 and 418.54. This was discussed with the Executive Director and leadership team.”
-
Timeframe for completion of assessment (42 CFR 418.54(b))
“Observed in Record Review. In 5 of 19 patient records reviewed, the hospice’s interdisciplinary group, in consultation with the patient’s attending physician, if any, had not completed the comprehensive assessment no later than five calendar days after the election of hospice care. In the charts for RRHV#2, RRNHV#5, RRNHV#9, RRNHV#10 and RRNHV#11, the Spiritual Care assessment that included all of the required elements, was not completed within first 5 days after election. This was discussed with the Director of Clinical Services.”
-
Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(7))
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 19 patient records reviewed, the organization had not documented a patient specific comprehensive assessment. In the chart for RRNHV#5, the initial comprehensive assessment did not include survivor risk factors. The initial bereavement risk assessment did not occur within the 5 days after the election of hospice as part of the comprehensive assessment as confirmed with the Director of Clinical Services.”
-
Update of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(d))
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 19 patient records reviewed, the hospice’s interdisciplinary group had not updated the comprehensive assessment in collaboration with the patient’s attending physician, if any, as frequently as the patient’s condition requires, but no less than every 15 days. In the chart for RRHV#4, 21 days passed between RN visits between the first and second benefit period. An LVN saw the patient once between the RN visits. This was discussed with the Director of Clinical Services.”
-
Patient outcome measures (42 CFR 418.54(e)(2))
The inspectors’ words, 128 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 19 patient records reviewed, the patient record was not accurately documented. In the chart for RRNHV#8, approximately 2 months prior to the survey, the IDT plan of care (POC) update indicated the patient had refused further spiritual care visits. One month later (and in all subsequent IDT meeting notes) the SC input into the POC update indicated that the patient was being seen monthly with no change needed in the care provided. There was no documentation in the record to indicate any SC visits had been made or attempted since the documented refusal of services. Additionally, the nursing interventions taught included how to self administer insulin. The patient was not on insulin. This was discussed with the Director of Clinical Services.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))
The inspectors’ words, 404 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 19 of 19 patient records reviewed, the written plan of care (POC) was not based on the patient’s goals and the time frames, settings, and services required to meet those goals. It was verified with the Clinical Supervisor that the organization does not incorporate individualized goals on the POC. The organization had some patient specific goals in the discipline specific care plans, though not time based. There were no patient charts which had goals on the POC which included time frames for anticipated achievement, nor were there individualized goals related to specific symptom problems or safety risks such as falls, high risk medications and/or oxygen use. These findings included the charts for RRHV#1, RRHV#2, RRHV#3, RRHV#4, RRNHV#5, RRNHV#6, RRNHV#7, RRNHV#8, RRNHV#9, RRNHV#10, RRNHV#11, RRNHV#12, RRNHV#13, RRNHV#14, RRDC#1, RRDC#2, RRBR#1, RRBR#2 and RRBR#3. Some examples included, in the chart for RRHV#1, Patient will follow an effective bowel program to prevent or relieve constipation. In a visit note, the RN instructed the patient to notify the hospice office if no BM in 3 days or change in usual This was a patient with history of multiple bowel obstructions needing to maintain soft stools at least daily. Additionally, Patient/caregiver will verbalize/demonstrate appropriate pain management. In the chart for RRNHV#6, examples of a missing time frame were: Patient/caregiver verbalizes/demonstrates use of positive coping mechanisms in dealing with depression and Patient demonstrates adequate use of positive coping mechanisms in dealing with hopelessness. The plan of care was not updated with a goal related to the safe use of oxygen when oxygen was added to the treatment plan. In the chart for RRHV#2, initial. The patient fell out of bed and fall prevention interventions were implemented, yet there was no goal related to fall prevention on the plan of care. In the chart for RRHV#3 goals were not time based and/or measurable including Caregiver will verbalize understanding/demonstrate measures to prevent/manage skin breakdown. Patient will have safety needs met.. In the chart for RRHV#4, the goal Caregiver will verbalize/demonstrate understanding of care required secondary to bowel incontinence lacked when that important safety goal would be anticipated to be met. In the chart for RRNHV#10, the private caregiver was changing the Foley catheter. There was no goal on the POC re: verifying the caregiver’s ability and technique to change the Foley catheter. The patient subsequently developed a UTI. This was discussed with the Director of Clinical Services.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(2))
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 19 patient records reviewed, the plan of care (POC) did not include all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions. In the chart for RRNHV#6, the current POC was updated with need for volunteer companionship and respite, however no frequency of those visits was included. This was discussed with the Director of Clinical Services.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(4))
The inspectors’ words, 829 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 15 of 19 patient records reviewed, the plan of care did not include all services needed for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions, including the following: medications and treatment necessary to meet the patient’s needs. In the chart for RRNHV#6, there were three medications all ordered prn for pain, Morphine, Acetaminophen and Tramadol without further clarity on when to use each. The order for Lantus read Inject 14 units subcutaneous daily for blood sugar <80. There was no indication that anyone clarified this order with the physician. The patient has been on service for more than 18 months. Oxygen was added approximately 15 months post admission. The plan of care was not updated with interventions related to instructing on oxygen safety, though the nursing care plan had these interventions added approximately 2 months post-order. In the chart for RRHV#1, oxygen 2lpm prn added to POC approximately 9 months post admission. The POC was not updated with any interventions related to oxygen safety. There was a history of repeated bowel obstructions with hospitalizations and Nausea was a problem for the patient upon admission. There were no interventions on the POC related to nausea other than medication, despite interventions in the nursing care plan. The patient had a fall risk of 5 at admission indicating she is at risk for falls. There were no interventions on POC re: falls and the POC was not updated when the patient transitioned from a walker to wheelchair due to decline for increased fall risk. The RN documented patient specific instruction to keep pathways clear, eliminate clutter, keep phone/items within reach, remove throw rugs, etc. In the chart for RRHV#2, the patient is bedbound with heels in soft boots and with the nursing staff educating the facility staff to turn the patient frequently per SN notes. These interventions are not on the POC. The patient required a hoyer lift for transfers. This is not on the POC. Falls precautions are in place due to patient turning and falling out of bed per SN note documentation, however no individualized fall prevention interventions are on the plan of care. In the chart for RRHV#3, there were no interventions on the POC related to measures to prevent and/or manage skin breakdown despite there being a goal related to this issue. In the chart for RRHV#4, there were no patient specific interventions on the hospice plan of care related to high fall risk simply stated, Hospice Nurse for assessment of patient safety, instruct safety measures as applicable. Patient had neuropathy, used a walker and had a history of falls. In the chart for RRNHV#5, the RN cleansed scalp staples and removed staples. No order was found for this treatment on the POC. The patient was at high risk for falls, had a history of frequent falls with injury yet the plan of care had no individualized fall reduction strategies. In the chart for RRNHV#7, the RN applied a condom catheter. This intervention was not on the POC. In the chart for RRNHV#8, the patient and family were assessed to be at high bereavement risk during the initial comprehensive assessment. There were no interventions on the POC related to this identified risk. In the chart for RRNHV#9, on admission, the patient had diarrhea several times per day, was at risk for falls with wounds related to a recent fall. There were no interventions on the POC for these identified problems nor for the dressing changes provided by the nurse at the first 2 nursing visits. A subsequent assessment indicated the patient wears compression socks to assist with edema, yet this was not part of the POC. In the chart for RRNHV#10, the patient was assessed to have significant anxiety issues. The RN is instructing on numerous interventions/techniques to assist with the problem, yet these interventions are not included on the POC. MSW interventions in the documentation are to assist with advance directives yet this intervention is not on the POC. In the chart for RRNHV#11, the patient had multiple falls with injury during the first benefit period. The interventions the RN implemented with the caregiver were not added to the POC. In the chart for RRNHV#13 Acetaminophen, Ibuprofen and Morphine were all ordered prn for pain without further clarity. Milk of Magnesia, Bisacodyl, Polyethylene Glycose all ordered prn for constipation without further clarity. The patient with history of frequent falls; no patient specific fall reduction interventions on POC. In the chart for RRNHV#14, the patient was getting protein shakes. This treatment was not on the POC. In the chart for RRDC#2, the patient had significant pain issues, requiring positioning per the assessment. There were no interventions except meds on the POC. The Physician noted in a routine visit note that the Aide was using a massage gun on the patient for complaints of pain. This intervention was not on the POC. This was discussed with the Director of Clinical Services.”
-
Review of the plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(d))
The inspectors’ words, 367 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 7 of 19 patient records reviewed, the plan of care was not revised based on updates to the comprehensive assessment and did not address progress toward goals. Examples included: In the chart for RRNHV#6, the patient had been on service for approximately 19 months at the time of survey. The current plan of care included goals such as A Medical Social Worker plan of care will be established. Patient/caregiver will verbalize/demonstrate compliance with medication regimen. which were added on the initial hospice plan of care and met in the first benefit period. In the chart for RRHV#1, in all of the multiple recertification plans of care, the goals had not been updated to reflect the attainment of goals including: Patient will follow an effective bowel program to prevent or relieve constipation. Patient/caregiver will verbalize/demonstrate appropriate pain management. In the chart for RRHV#2, the goals of patient/caregiver will verbalize understanding of effects of urinary incontinence. oxygen levels will be monitored as appropriate remain on the plan of care during the current, 5th benefit period POC despite the SN notes indicating that the caregivers had verbalized understanding of the effects of urinary incontinence during the admission visit. In the chart for RRHV#3, the goals of Caregiver will verbalize understanding/demonstrate measures to prevent/manage skin breakdown. Patient will have safety needs met. remain on all of the recertification plans of care with no documentation as to why these goals had not been met. In the chart for RRHV#4, the goal Caregiver will verbalize/demonstrate understanding of care required secondary to bowel incontinence remains on the POC since admission despite the nursing staff having documented the goal had been met early in the care of the patient. In the chart for RRNHV#8, there was no update of the POC at recertification. On the current POC which is for the 4th benefit period, it continued to have patient/caregiver verbalizes/demonstrates understanding of management of diabetes to prevent a diabetic event. which was met during the initial benefit period. In the chart for RRNHV#13, the goals that had been met in the first benefit period remained on the recertification plan of care. This was discussed with the Director of Clinical Services.”
-
Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(2))
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 19 patient records reviewed, the organization had not provided the patient with care, treatment, or services according to the patient’s individualized plan of care. In the chart for RRHV#4, Spiritual Care visits were planned monthly, yet no visits were documented for the months of June or August of the current year. There was no documentation the team was notified, nor any indication why the visits were not made. This was discussed with the Director of Clinical Services.”
-
Supervision of hospice aides (42 CFR 418.76(h)(1)(i))
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 19 patient records reviewed, the registered nurse had not supervised the hospice aide during an on-site visit to the patient’s home no less frequently than every 14 days. In the chart for RRHV#4, 21 days passed between supervisory visits by the RN in the second benefit period. This was discussed with the Director of Clinical Services.”
All 3 inspections in the last three years
| Date | Visit | What the record says |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2025 | Follow-up inspection by The Joint Commission | 3 deficiencies cited |
| Sep 30, 2025 | Complaint inspection by the state | No deficiencies cited |
| Sep 12, 2025 | Reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission | 11 deficiencies cited |
Is it certified?
- Medicare-certified hospice since Jul 15, 2010.
- Ownership: for-profit.
- 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): 12.1 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 6.2% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 90% of patients who died.
- Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 56% at home, 37% in assisted living, 7% in a nursing facility.
CMS, Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Measure | This provider |
|---|---|
| Nurse care minutes per routine home care day | 12.1 min |
| Skilled nursing minutes at weekends | 6.2% |
| Visits near death | 90.0% of patients who died |
Who owns it?
- A Better Way Health Management, Inc. owns 100% directly since Aug 15, 2012.
- 4 owners or officers are people: Erin Danzer (managing employee (on the payroll), 100%); Larry Nabb (corporate officer, 0%); Jim D Glynn (corporate director); Robert Kenneth Perko (managing employee (under contract)).
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Better Way Health Management, Inc. | Owns 5% or more directly | 100% | Aug 15, 2012 |
| Jet Health, Inc. | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Apr 26, 2019 |
| Sv Life Sciences Fund VI LP | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 58.13% | Dec 1, 2020 |
| Health Enterprise Partners II LP | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 27.89% | Dec 1, 2020 |
What do families say?
- Family caregivers rate it 4 of 5 in CMS’s survey (Oct 1, 2023 to Sep 30, 2025): 81% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 86% would definitely recommend it.
- CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 10 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
- 100% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 59% 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 | 4 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 23 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 83709, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 5; this one had 14.
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 |
|---|---|
| Enhabit Home Health & Hospice | 0 |
| First Choice Home Health & Hospice This hospice | 14 |
| Auburn Crest Hospice Treasure Valley, LLC | 8 |
| Idaho Home Health & Hospice | 1 |
| St Luke’s Home Care / Hospice | 4 |
| Horizon Hospice West | 4 |
| Horizon Hospice | Not given |
| Enhabit Hospice of Idaho | 4 |
| Heart N Home Hospice & Palliative Care | 5 |
| Harrison’s Hope | 8 |
| Journeys Hospice | 3 |
| Idaho Home Health & Hospice of Treasure Valley | 0 |
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.