Hearth Record

Hope Healthcare & Hospice Bc, LLC

A hospice in Houma, Louisiana 70364

205 Bayou Gardens Boulevard, Suite E, Houma, Louisiana 70364. (985) 868-3095.

CMS’s own record, on Care Compare

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.

The last 24 months 6 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Nov 2024. Most serious: Standard-level. Every month

Each figure’s source sits beside it, in its section below.

What these words mean3
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.

What did inspectors find?

6 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 9 hospices serving ZIP code 70364 had 4.

The last inspection on record was on Nov 26, 2024: a recertification inspection by the state.

Source:

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

6 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Nov 2024. Most serious: Standard-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 27, 2026.

6 deficiencies by month over the last 3 years. Each cell is one month.
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2023 NovDec
2024 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2025 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2026 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOct

Hover or focus a month to read it.

No visit on record Visited, nothing cited A stronger orange is more serious, on its source’s own levels, read onto four bands: from the least serious it publishes to the most
Source:

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.

Source:

CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Nov 26, 2024: recertification inspection by the state6 deficiencies
  • Timeframe for completion of assessment (42 CFR 418.54(b))

    The inspectors’ words, 400 words

    “Based on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the agency failed to ensure all members of the interdisciplinary group completed the comprehensive assessment no later than 5 days of the election of hospice care for 3 (Patient #5, #13, and #15) of 19 (Patient #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, and #19) sampled patients reviewed for initial comprehensive assessments. Findings included: Patient #5 Review of Patient #5s Medicare Hospice Election Statement and Medicaid Hospice Recipient Notice of Election dated 05/22/2023 revealed Patient #5s spouse elected hospice services for Patient #5 on 05/22/2023. Review of Patient #5s Initial Psychosocial Comprehensive Assessment revealed the assessment was completed on 07/05/2023. There was no documented evidence, and the agency presented no documented evidence, an Initial Psychosocial Comprehensive Assessment and/or social worker visit was completed within 5 days of the election of hospice services. In an interview on 11/26/2024 at 2:51PM, S2Administrator/Director of Nursing (DON) indicated at the time of Patient #5s admit, the social worker was in training, and the agency failed to have another employee complete the Psychosocial Comprehensive Assessment no later than the 5 days of the election of hospice services. Patient #13 Review of Patient #13s Medicare Hospice Election Statement dated 08/16/2024 revealed Patient #13 elected hospice services on 08/16/2024. Review of Patient #13s Initial Psychosocial Comprehensive Assessment revealed the assessment was completed on 08/21/2024. There was no documented evidence, and the agency presented no documented evidence, Patient #13 had an Initial Psychosocial Comprehensive Assessment completed by 08/20/2024. In an interview on 11/26/2024 at 3:16PM, S10Quality Assurance Nurse indicated the social worker had miscalculated the 5 deadline; therefore did not complete the Initial Psychosocial Comprehensive Assessment within the required timeframe as required. Patient #15 Review of Patient #15s Medicare Hospice Election Statement dated 05/01/2024 revealed Patient #15 elected hospice services on 05/01/2024. Review of Patient #15s Initial Psychosocial Comprehensive Assessment revealed the assessment was completed on 05/06/2024. Review of Patient #15s Initial Spiritual Comprehensive Assessment revealed the assessment was completed on 05/07/2024. There was no documented evidence, and the agency presented no documented evidence, Patient #15 had the Initial Psychosocial and Spiritual Comprehensive Assessments completed by 05/05/2024 as required. In an interview on 11/26/2024 at 3:18PM, S2Administrator/DON indicated the social worker and chaplain did not complete the Initial Psychosocial and Spiritual Comprehensive Assessments within the required timeframes.”

    Rule L0523. Standard-level.

  • Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(7))

    The inspectors’ words, 235 words

    “Based on record review and interview it was determined that the agency failed to ensure initial bereavement assessments were completed for (Patient #5, #16, and #19) of 19 (Patient #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, and #19) sampled patients reviewed for initial bereavement assessments. Findings included: Patient #5 Review of Patient #5s record revealed Patient #5 was admitted to the agency on 05/22/2023. There was no documented evidence, and the agency presented no documented evidence, Patient #5 had an initial bereavement assessment completed. In an interview on 11/26/2024 at 2:51PM, S2Administrator/Director of Nursing (DON) indicated the agency did not ensure an initial bereavement assessment was completed for Patient #5. Patient #16 Review of Patient #16s record revealed Patient #16 was admitted to the agency on 06/23/2023. There was no documented evidence, and the agency presented no documented evidence, Patient #16 had an initial bereavement assessment completed. In an interview on 11/26/2024 at 3:19PM, S2Administrator/DON indicated Patient #16 did not have a bereavement assessment completed as required. Patient #19 Review of Patient #19s record revealed Patient #16 was admitted to the agency on 03/07/2024. There was no documented evidence, and the agency presented no documented evidence, Patient #19 had an initial bereavement assessment completed. In an interview on 11/26/2024 at 3:32PM, S2Administrator/DON indicated Patient #19 did not have a bereavement assessment completed as required.”

    Rule L0531. Standard-level.

  • Plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(b))

    The inspectors’ words, 146 words

    “Based on record reviews and interview, it was determined that the agency failed to ensure a patient received skilled nursing services per the ordered frequency for 1 (Patient #9) of 19 (Patient #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, and #19) sampled patients reviewed for care and services per the plan of care and physician orders. Findings included: Review of Patient #9s Physician Order dated 10/28/2024 revealed Patient #9 was to receive skilled nursing services once a week for one week, then twice a week for twelve weeks. Review of Patient #9s record revealed the only skilled nurse visit completed for the week of 11/17/2024 through 11/23/2024 was completed on 11/20/2024. In an interview on 11/26/2024 at 3:45PM, S2Administrator/Director of Nursing (DON) indicated the nurse did not complete a second skilled nurse visit as required.”

    Rule L0543. Standard-level.

  • Review of the plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(d))

    The inspectors’ words, 291 words

    “Based on record reviews and interviews, it was determined the agency failed to notify the patients physician of a change in condition for 2 (Patient #16 and #17) of 19 (Patient #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, and #19) sampled patients reviewed for a change in condition. Findings included: Patient #16 Review of Patient #16s Skilled Nurse PRN (as needed) Visit note dated 07/21/2024 revealed, in part, the skilled nurse completed a visit due to the facility nurse reporting an abscess (pocket of infection under the skin) to Patient #16s groin. Further review revealed Patient #16 was assessed as having a small hardened abscess to the left labia (exterior portion of the vaginal area) with a pinhole size open are where discharge was leaking. Further review revealed no documented evidence, and the agency presented no documented evidence, Patient #16s physician was notified of Patient #16s groin/left labia abscess. In an interview on 11/26/2024 at 3:19PM, S2Administrator/Director of Nursing (DON) indicated the agency had no documented evidence Patient #16s physician was notified of the new abscess. S2Administrator/DON further confirmed Patient #16s physician should have been notified of the new abscess. Patient #17 Review of Patient #17s record revealed Patient #17 had a fall on 11/18/2024. Review of Patient #17s Skilled Nurse Visit dated 11/19/2024 revealed Patient #17 was assessed as having new left ankle pain with facial grimacing. Further review revealed, no documented evidence, and the agency presented no documented evidence Patient #17s physician was notified of Patient #17s new complaint of left ankle pain. In an interview on 11/26/2024 at 3:26PM, S2Administrator/DON indicated Patient #17s physician was notified of Patient #17s new complaint of left ankle pain on 11/19/2024.”

    Rule L0552. Standard-level.

  • Licensed professional services (42 CFR 418.62(b))

    The inspectors’ words, 457 words

    “Based on record review, wound care standards of practice, and interview, it was determined the agency failed to ensure wounds were measured and assessed weekly for 2 (Patient #13 and #17) of 5 (Patient #3, #4, #11, #13, and #17) sampled patients reviewed for wound assessment. Findings included: Review of the Wound Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society’s Guidelines revealed assessment and documentation of wound status, which includes comprehensive clinical data demonstrating evidence of progress in healing or failure to heal. Comprehensive wound assessment included: dimensions and depth; presence, location and depth of any sinus tracts or undermining areas; status and characteristics of the wound bed; volume, color, and odor of exudates; evidence of infection in surrounding tissues. Further review revealed when recorded over time this information can be used to track the progress of wound healing. Patient #13 Review of Patient #13s Skilled Nurse Visit note dated 10/25/2024 revealed, in part, Patient #13 had a non-blanchable (skin which does not turn pale when compressed) redness to the coccyx (area around the tailbone). Further review of Patient #13s Skilled Nurse Visit note revealed no documented evidence Patient #13s coccyx wound was measured. Review of Patient #13s record revealed no documented evidence, and the agency presented no documented evidence, Patient #13s coccyx wound was measured weekly for the weeks of, 10/27/2024 through 11/02/2024, 11/03/2024 through 11/09/2024, and 11/10/2024 through 11/16/2024. In an interview on 11/26/2024 at 3:16PM, S2Administrator/Director of Nursing (DON) indicated wound care measurements were not obtained for Patient #13 as required. Patient #17 Review of Patient #17s Registered Nurse (RN) Initial/Comprehensive Assessment dated 10/10/2023 revealed Patient #17 was admitted with the following wounds, in part, stage 3 (wound that extends into the subcutaneous tissue) to the sacrum (area of the upper portion of the middle buttock); wound to the left anterior shin (front of lower leg) with no wound type documented; diabetic ulcer to the left great toe (big toe); diabetic ulcer to left medial (inside portion) heel; diabetic ulcer to the left Achilles area (back of ankle); diabetic ulcer to the left lateral malleolus (left foot); diabetic ulcer to the right heel; diabetic ulcer to the right lateral foot (outside portion of the foot). Further review revealed Patient #17 resided in a nursing facility. Review of Patient #17s record revealed no documented evidence, and the agency presented no documented evidence, Patient #17s above mentioned wounds were assessed and measured by the agency skilled nurse from 10/15/2023 through 11/26/2023. In an interview on 11/26/2024 at 3:26PM, S2Administrator/DON indicated the agency had no documented evidence Patient #17s wounds were measured weekly as required. S2Administrator/DON indicated the agencys skilled nurse should have coordinated with the nursing facilitys wound care nurse to assess and measure the wounds weekly as required.”

    Rule L0585. Standard-level.

  • Counseling services (42 CFR 418.64(d)(1))

    The inspectors’ words, 200 words

    “Based on record review and interview it was determined the agency failed to assess patient and/or caregiver bereavement needs after the patient expired to develop individualized bereavement plans of care for 2 (Patient #18 and #19) of 3 (Patient #17, #18, and Patient #19) sampled patients reviewed for bereavement services. Findings included: Patient #18 Review of Patient #18s record revealed Patient #18 was admitted to the agency on 12/14/2023 and expired on 12/18/2023. There was no documented evidence, and the agency presented no documented evidence, a bereavement assessment was completed. In an interview on 11/26/2024 at 10:07AM, S6Chaplain indicated he did not complete and document a bereavement assessment to identify any individualized concerns Patient #18s caregiver may have. Patient #19 Review of Patient #19s record revealed Patient #18 was admitted to the agency on 03/07/2024 and expired on 03/19/2024. There was no documented evidence, and the agency presented no documented evidence, a bereavement assessment was completed after Patient #18 expired to assess Patient #18s caregivers individualized needs. In an interview on 11/26/2024 at 10:08AM, S6Chaplain indicated did not complete a bereavement assessment after Patient #19 expired to identify any individualized needs, and started the agencys standard bereavement care plan program.”

    Rule L0596. Standard-level.

The one inspection in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Nov 26, 2024Recertification inspection by the state6 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Jul 13, 1987.
  • Ownership: for-profit.
  • No deficiency or on record in the last three years.
Source:

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.
Source:

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): 13.1 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 5.9% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 94.6% of patients who died.
  • Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 64% at home, 2% in assisted living, 34% in a nursing facility.
Source:

CMS, Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Staffing measures
MeasureThis provider
Nurse care minutes per routine home care day13.1 min
Skilled nursing minutes at weekends5.9%
Visits near death94.6% of patients who died

Who owns it?

  • Superior Health Holdings Inc. owns 100% directly since Nov 14, 2025.
  • 7 owners or officers are people: Dawn Verret (managing employee (on the payroll)); Melissa Peairs (corporate officer); Melissa Peairs (runs it (operational or managerial control)); Adam Michael Arceneaux (managing employee (under contract)); David Joseph Martin (corporate officer); David Joseph Martin (corporate director); David Joseph Martin (runs it (operational or managerial control)).
  • A private-equity firm is among the owners CMS lists.
  • No real-estate investment trust among the owners CMS lists.
Source:

CMS, Hospice All Owners and Hospice Enrollments. Released Sep 29, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Organisations CMS lists
OrganisationRoleShareSince
Superior Health Enterprises, LLCOwns 5% or more through other companies100%Nov 14, 2025
Superior Health Buyer, LLCOwns 5% or more through other companies100%Nov 14, 2025
Superior Health Holdings Inc.Owns 5% or more directly100%Nov 14, 2025
Superior Health Parent, LLCOwns 5% or more through other companies100%Nov 14, 2025
Rcp Superior Aggregator, LLCOwns 5% or more through other companies96.93%Nov 14, 2025
University of Texas SystemOwns 5% or more through other companies20.13%Nov 14, 2025
State of Montana Board of InvestmentsOwns 5% or more through other companies5.37%Nov 14, 2025

What do families say?

  • Family caregivers rate it 5 of 5 in CMS’s survey (Oct 1, 2023 to Sep 30, 2025): 87% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 89% would definitely recommend it.
  • CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 9 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
  • 98.91% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 65.5% had visits from a nurse or social worker on at least 2 of their last 3 days (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
Source:

CMS, CAHPS Hospice Survey and Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Ratings and measures, as published
MeasureRating
Family caregiver survey ratingCMS star rating from its survey of patients’ family caregivers, 1 to 55 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 threshold9 of 10

How does it compare nearby?

  • Of the 9 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 70364, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 4; this one had 6.
Source:

CMS, Hospice ZIP Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.

CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.

The 9 hospices CMS lists serving ZIP code 70364
PlaceDeficiencies, 3 years
Hope Healthcare & Hospice Bc, LLC This hospice6
Haydel Memorial Hospice0
Acg Hospice1
St Joseph Hospice4
St Joseph Hospice of Bayou Region7
Heart of Hospice4
St Catherine’s Hospice, LLC4
Heart of Hospice7
Premier Hospice2

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

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.

Source:

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.

How to read a record

Four things every record does, shown on an example record made up for this guide.

An example record, made up for this guide

An example nursing home

Made up for this guide: no real place is shown

Not fully inspected in over two years (CMS flag)

11 health citations at the latest inspection cycle

The state average is 14.3.

Source:

CMS, State and US Averages and Health Deficiencies. Released Oct 28, 2026. Updated monthly.

From the homeNone yet. Replies and paid listings aren’t open, and when they open they will sit here, below the record.

1 of 4

Every fact names its source.

Who published it, when, and how often it changes sit beside each fact, with a link to the agency’s own file.

Sign in

A free account keeps your watch list, shortlists, comparisons and saved searches on every device, and can email you when something you watch changes. Browsing never needs one.