Heartland Hospice (Baltimore)
A hospice in Windsor Mill, Maryland 21244
7001 Johnnycake Rd Ste 204, Windsor Mill, Maryland 21244. (410) 247-2900.
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.
- 36 deficiencies cited in the last three years
- 1of 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?
36 deficiencies cited in the last three years
The middle of the 6 hospices serving ZIP code 21244 had 11.
The last inspection on record was on Mar 12, 2025: a follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care.
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
36 deficiencies in 2 months of the last 36. Last cited Mar 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.
Mar 12, 2025: follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care4 deficiencies
-
Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(6))
The inspectors’ words, 116 words
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 5 records (Patient #2,#3) did not have evidence in the patient record that a review was completed of all prescription and non-prescription medications, including herbal remedies that could affect drug therapy. This review includes, but is not limited to: • Effectiveness of drug therapy • Drug side effects • Actual or potential drug interactions • Duplicate drug therapy • Drug therapy currently associated with laboratory monitoring Patient #2: The medication profile contained duplicate orders dated 3/5/25 for Acetaminophen rectal suppository 650mg 1, q8h prn pain or fever. Patient #3: The medication profile contained Acetaminophen rectal supp 650mg q8h prn pain or fever without evidence of a parameter for the fever.”
-
Approach to service delivery (42 CFR 418.56(a)(1))
The inspectors’ words, 107 words
“Upon patient record review, 1 of 5 records (Patient #3) did not have evidence that a Registered Nurse ensured continuous assessment of the patient and family’s needs and coordinated activities with other members of the interdisciplinary group (IDG). The IDG must work together and is responsible for supervision of the care and service for each patient and family. Patient #3: A triage note dated 2/25/25 at 5pm indicated a call from the facility that the patient had had an unwitnessed fall, with no noted injuries. The documentation indicated that a visit was needed. There was not evidence of a visit by the nurse until 3/3/25 at 9:29am.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(4))
“Upon patient record review, 1 of 5 records (Patient #3) did not have evidence the plan of care included all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions, including medications and treatments. Patient #3: The record contained an order for Acetaminophen rectal supp 650mg q8h prn pain or fever without evidence of a parameter for the fever.”
-
Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(2))
“Upon patient client record review, 1 of 5 records (Patient #3) did not have evidence that each patient record contains: • Signed election statement in accordance with 418.24 Patient #3: The record indicated that the patient/representative wished to receive the “Patient Notification of Hospice Non-Covered Items, Services, and Drugs.” There was not evidence that this document was furnished.”
Jan 30, 2025: reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care32 deficiencies
-
IDG, care planning, coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56)
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 19 (Patients #3,#9) did not have evidence in the patient record that the written plan of care is developed by the IDG, in consultation with the patient’s attending physician, which specifies the services necessary to meet the patient and family-specific needs identified in the comprehensive assessment as it relates to the terminal illness and related conditions. Patient 3,9: There was no evidence the plan of care was developed in consultation with the attending physician.”
-
Names and Contact Information (42 CFR 418.113(c)(1))
“Upon observation, there was no evidence the Emergency Plan communication plan includes all of the following: • Names and contact information for the following: • Hospice employees • Entities providing services under arrangement • Patients’ physicians • Other hospices Corrected on site.”
-
Emergency Officials Contact Information (42 CFR 418.113(c)(2))
“Upon observation, there was no evidence the Emergency Plan communication plan includes contact information for Federal, state, tribal, regional, or local emergency preparedness staff. Corrected on site.”
-
Primary/Alternate Means for Communication (42 CFR 418.113(c)(3))
“Upon observation, there was no evidence the Emergency Plan communication plan must includes a primary and alternate means for communicating with hospice’s employees and Federal, state, tribal, regional, and local emergency management agencies. Corrected on site.”
-
EP Testing Requirements (42 CFR 418.113(d)(2))
“Upon observation, there was no evidence the agency has conducted exercises to test the emergency plan every two years. The agency recorded a real event in 2024 but there was no evidence of an exercise or drill completed prior to 2024.”
-
Notice of rights and responsibilities (42 CFR 418.52(a)(2))
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 19 (Patients #3,#9) did not have evidence that the hospice informed and provided written information to the patient concerning its policies on advance directives, including a description of applicable state law. Patients 3,9: There was no evidence the patient/responsible parties received information on advance directives.”
-
Notice of rights and responsibilities (42 CFR 418.52(a)(3))
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 19 (Patients #3,#9) did not have evidence that the hospice obtained the patient’s or representative’s signature confirming that they received a copy of the Patient’s Rights and Responsibilities. Patients 3,9: There was no evidence the patient/responsible party received a copy of the Patient’s Rights and Responsibilities.”
-
Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(4))
“Upon patient record review, 4 of 19 (Patients #3,#5,#9,#10) did not have evidence that the patient chooses a health care provider, including an attending physician. Patients 3,9: There was no evidence the agency honored the patient choice of a community attending physician to be involved with the plan of care. Patients 5,10: There was no evidence the agency honored the patient choice of a community attending physician to be involved with the plan of care since admission.”
-
Timeframe for completion of assessment (42 CFR 418.54(b))
“Upon patient record review 1 of 19 (Patient #6) did not have evidence in the patient record that the hospice interdisciplinary group, in consultation with the individual’s attending physician (if any), completed the comprehensive assessment no later than 5 calendar days after the election of hospice care. Patient 6: The medical record contained a comprehensive spiritual assessment completed 1/13/25 with start of care 1/4/25.”
-
Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(6))
The inspectors’ words, 202 words
“Upon patient record review, 5 of 19 (Patients #3,#4,#7,#9,#10) did not have evidence in the patient record that a review was completed of all prescription and non-prescription medications. Patient 3: The medication profile contained amoxicillin started 11/25/24 listed as current medication. Patient 4: The medication profile contained zinc oxide topical cream with no location identified for administration. Patient 7: The medical record contained an order for oxygen equipment but the oxygen rate, frequency and delivery method was not on the medication profile. Corrected on site. Patient 9: Upon observation during home visit, the facility and hospice medication profiles did not match. The facility medication profile did not have lorazepam and morphine PRNs dated 6/13/24 on the hospice profile, and hospice did not have cranberry capsules, mirtazepine, senna-s, synthroid, and systane eye drops that were listed on the facility profile. Patient 10: Upon observation during home visit, the facility and hospice medication profiles did not match. The facility medication profile had oxygen and levothyroxine not on hospice profile. The facility also had senna 2 tablets twice daily compared to hospice 1 tablet twice daily. The hospice profile also contained benzonate that was not on the facility profile. The oxygen was corrected on site.”
-
Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(7))
The inspectors’ words, 95 words
“Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #11) did not have evidence in the patient record that the comprehensive assessment includes a bereavement component which includes the needs of the patient’s family and other individuals focusing on the social, spiritual, and cultural factors that may impact their ability to cope with the patient’s death. Information gathered from the initial bereavement assessment is incorporated into the plan of care and is considered in the bereavement plan of care. Patient 11: The medical record contained an initial bereavement assessment completed 1/18/25 with start of care 1/9/25.”
-
Approach to service delivery (42 CFR 418.56(a)(1))
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 19 (Patients #2,#4) did not have evidence that a Registered Nurse is designated to ensure continuous assessment of the patient and family’s needs. Patient 2: There was no evidence of sacrum wound measurements and assessments from 1/2/25 to 1/29/25 as required weekly per agency policy. Patient 4: There was no evidence of right ankle wound measurements since 12/6/24 and no assessments since 12/27/24 as required weekly per agency policy.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))
The inspectors’ words, 284 words
“Upon patient record review, 5 of 19 (Patients #2,#3,#6,#9,#14) did not have evidence in the patient record that the hospice has developed an individualized written plan of care for each patient. The plan of care must reflect patient/family goals and interventions based on the problems identified in the initial, comprehensive, and updated comprehensive assessments. The plan of care must include all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions. Patient 2: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying the patient has a history of seizures. There was no evidence of problems, goals, and interventions related seizure precautions included in the plan of care. Patient 3: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying the patient receives tube feeding. There was no evidence of problems, goals, and interventions related to tube feedings included in the plan of care. Patient 6: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying the patient is a high risk for skin impairment and primary diagnosis was heart failure. There was no evidence of problems, goals, and interventions related to cardiac dysfunction and risk for skin impairment included in the plan of care. Patient 9: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying patient issues with dysphagia. There was no evidence of problems, goals, and interventions related to dysphagia included in the plan of care. Patient 14: The plan of care identified the patient as full code in error. The MOLST on file identified the patient as DNR. The record also contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying the patient has dementia. There was no evidence of problems, goals, and interventions related to neurological dysfunction included in the plan of care.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(4))
The inspectors’ words, 142 words
“Upon patient record review, 4 of 19 (Patients #2,#3,#4,#7) did not have evidence the plan of care must include all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions, including medications and treatments. Patient 2: The medical record contained nursing documentation since admission identifying the patient received tube feedings. There was no evidence of an order for formula type, rate, and frequency. Corrected on site. Patient 3: The medical record contained nursing documentation since admission identifying the patient received tube feedings. There was no evidence of an order for formula type, rate, and frequency. Patient 4: The medical record contained an order for zinc oxide topical cream with no location identified for administration. Patient 7: The medical record contained an order for oxygen equipment but no order for oxygen rate, frequency, and delivery method. Corrected on site.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(5))
The inspectors’ words, 379 words
“Upon patient record review, 9 of 19 (Patients #1,#2,#3,#5,#6,#8,#9,#10,#14) did not have evidence the plan of care must include all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions, including equipment and supply needs. Patient 1: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying patient use of a walker. There was no evidence of an order for the walker included in the plan of care. Corrected on site. Patient 2: The medical record contained nursing documentation 1/13/25 identifying patient use of bedrails. There was no evidence of an order for the rails included in the plan of care. Corrected on site. Patient 3: The medication profile contained a prescription administered with a nebulizer. There was no evidence of an order for the nebulizer included in the plan of care. Corrected on site. Patient 5: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying patient use of a walker and 12/30/24 identifying use of a wheelchair and fall matt. There was no evidence of orders for the DME included in the plan of care. Corrected on site. Patient 6: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying patient use of a hospital bed, APP mattress, and wheelchair. There was no evidence of orders for the DME included in the plan of care. Corrected on site. Patient 8: The medication profile identified the patient use of oxygen. There was no evidence of an order for oxygen equipment included in the plan of care. Corrected on site. Patient 9: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying patient use of a hospital bed and over bed table. There was no evidence of orders for the bed and table included in the plan of care. Patient 10: The medical record contained nursing documentation 1/2/25 identifying patient use of a nebulizer. There was no evidence of an order for the nebulizer included in the plan of care. Corrected on site. Patient 14: The medication profile contained a prescription administered with a nebulizer and during the home visit, it was observed the patient had a hospital bed, over bed table, wheelchair, commode, trapeze, and grab bars on the bed. There was no evidence of orders for the DME included in the plan of care. Corrected on site.”
-
Review of the plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(d))
“Upon patient record review, 4 of 19 (Patients #3,#5,#9,#10) did not have evidence that the IDG in collaboration with the attending physician reviewed, revised and documents the individualized plan as frequently as the patient’s condition requires but no less frequently then every 15 calendar days. Patients 3,5,9,10: There was no evidence of collaboration with the attending physician to update the plan of care no less frequently than every 15 days.”
-
Review of the plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(d))
The inspectors’ words, 155 words
“Upon patient record review, 3 of 19 (Patients #1,#9,#14) did not have evidence that a revised plan of care includes information from the patient’s updated comprehensive assessment and must note the patient’s progress towards outcome/goals from the plan of care. Patient 1: The medical record contained a MOLST dated 12/17/24 identifying the patient code status was changed from full code to DNR. There was no evidence the plan of care was updated to reflect the patient is DNR. Corrected on site. Patient 9: The medical record contained nursing documentation 11/27/24 identifying the patient is a high risk for skin impairment. There was no evidence the plan of care was updated with problems, goals, and interventions related to skin. Patient 14: The medical record contained nursing documentation 12/20/24 identifying the patient is a high risk for falls. There was no evidence the plan of care was updated with problems, goals, and interventions related to fall safety.”
-
Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(2))
“Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #8) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient 8: The medical record contained an order for nurse visits twice weekly. There was no evidence of second visits completed the weeks of 12/1/24, 12/8/24, and 12/15/24.”
-
Counseling services (42 CFR 418.64(d)(1))
“Upon patient record review, 3 of 19 (Patients #15,#16,#17) did not have evidence the hospice offers bereavement counseling that includes: • Ensuring that bereavement services reflect the needs of the bereaved Patients 15,16: The bereavement care plan contained incomplete tasks including memorial service invitation, support group invitations, and holiday letters. Patient 17: The bereavement care plan contained incomplete tasks including memorial service invitation and support group invitations.”
-
Hospice aide assignments and duties (42 CFR 418.76(g)(1))
“Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #13) did not have evidence in the patient record that hospice aide assignments and duties are specific to the patient’s needs. Patient 13: The aide care plan contained transfer instructions 1 person assist. The medical record contained nursing documentation since 11/11/24 identifying patient requires a 2 person assist to transfer. Corrected on site.”
-
Hospice aide assignments and duties (42 CFR 418.76(g)(2))
The inspectors’ words, 146 words
“Upon patient record review 4 of 19 (Patients #1,#8,#13,#14) did not have evidence documentation in the patient record that a hospice aide provides services that are: • Ordered by the interdisciplinary group Patient 1: The medical record contained an order for aide frequency of twice weekly visits. There was no evidence of aide visits completed the week of 12/15/24. Patient 8: The medical record contained an order for aide frequency of twice weekly visits. There was no evidence of a second visit completed the week of 12/22/24. Patient 13: The medical record contained an order for aide frequency of three weekly visits. There was no evidence of a third visit completed the weeks of 12/8/24, 12/15/24, and 12/22/24. Patient 14: The medical record contained an order for aide frequency of twice weekly visits. There was no evidence of a second visit completed the week of 12/8/24.”
-
Supervision of hospice aides (42 CFR 418.76(h)(1))
The inspectors’ words, 95 words
“Upon patient record review 2 of 19 (Patients #3,#4) did not have evidence documentation in the patient record that a Registered Nurse made an on-site visit to the patient’s home no less frequently than every 14 days to assess the quality of care and services provided by the hospice aide and to ensure that services ordered by the hospice interdisciplinary group meet the patient’s needs. Patient 3: There was no evidence of an aide supervisory visit from 12/16/24 to 1/14/25. Patient 4: There was no evidence of an aide supervisory visit from 12/27/24 to 1/17/25.”
-
Level of activity (42 CFR 418.78(e))
“Upon observation, there was no evidence the annual report documents the use of volunteers providing day to day administrative and/or direct patient care services in an amount that, at a minimum, equals 5 percent of the total patient care hours of all paid hospice employees and contract personnel. The agency’s volunteer utilization rate was 1.4% for 2024.”
-
Training (42 CFR 418.100(g)(1))
“Upon personnel record review, 1 of 15 (Personnel #12) did not have evidence the hospice employees and contract employees have received orientation on the hospice philosophy. Personnel 12: There was no evidence of orientation in the personnel file.”
-
Training (42 CFR 418.100(g)(2))
“Upon personnel record review, 2 of 15 (Personnel #4,#12) did not have evidence that the hospice employees have received orientation on their specific job requirements. Personnel 4: There was no evidence of orientation to the employee’s current role. Personnel 12: There was no evidence of orientation in the personnel file.”
-
Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(2))
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 19 (Patients #3,#9) did not have evidence that each patient record contains: • Signed copies of the notice of patient rights in accordance with 418.52 Patients 3,9: There was no evidence the patients/responsible parties received patient rights.”
-
Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(5))
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 19 (Patients #3,#9) did not have evidence that each patient record contains Physician certification and recertification of terminal illness. Patient 3,9: There was no evidence of initial certification of terminal illness received from the attending physician.”
-
Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(6))
The inspectors’ words, 107 words
“Upon patient record review, 4 of 19 (Patients #3,#4,#12,#13) did not have evidence that each patient record contains Advance Directives. Patient 3: The medical record contained social work documentation 12/23/24 identifying the patient is DNR. There was no evidence of a DNR order or MOLST form in the record. Patients 4,12: The plan of care identified patient as both full code and DNR. There was no evidence of a DNR order or MOLST form in the record. Patient 13: The medical record contained consent paperwork upon admission identifying the patient has a living will. There was no evidence of a copy of the will in the record.”
-
Authentication (42 CFR 418.104(b))
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 19 (Patients #4,#12) did not have evidence that all entries are legible, clear, complete, and appropriately authenticated and dated in accordance with the organizations policies and procedures and currently accepted standards of practice. Electronic signatures are acceptable as long the hospice is following appropriate safeguards to prevent unauthorized access to the patient records. Patient 4,12: The plan of care identified the patient a both full code and DNR.”
-
Label dispose storage drugs (42 CFR 418.106(e)(2)(i)(C))
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 19 (Patients #3,#9) did not have evidence that the written policies and procedures for managing controlled drugs was provided and discussed. Patients 3,9: There was no evidence the patients/responsible parties received policies for managing controlled drugs.”
-
Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.112(e)(3))
“Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #9) did not have evidence that the hospice provided the following information: • Physician certification and recertification of the terminal illness specific to each patient Patient 9: During observation on the home visit, there was no evidence the facility was provided the physician certification and recertifications of the terminal illness.”
-
Criminal background checks (42 CFR 418.114(d)(1))
“Upon personnel record review, 1 of 15 (Personnel #12) did not have evidence the hospice obtained a criminal background check on all contracted individuals who have direct patient care and access to patient records. Personnel 12: There was no evidence of a criminal background check in the personnel file.”
All 2 inspections in the last three years
| Date | Visit | What the record says |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 12, 2025 | Follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care | 4 deficiencies cited |
| Jan 30, 2025 | Reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care | 32 deficiencies cited |
Is it certified?
- Medicare-certified hospice since Jul 8, 1995.
- Ownership: non-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): 12.7 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 7.5% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 79.3% of patients who died.
- Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 22% at home, 44% in assisted living, 32% in a nursing facility, 1% in a skilled nursing facility.
CMS, Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Measure | This provider |
|---|---|
| Nurse care minutes per routine home care day | 12.7 min |
| Skilled nursing minutes at weekends | 7.5% |
| Visits near death | 79.3% of patients who died |
Who owns it?
- Curo Health Services Holdings, Inc. owns 100% directly since Jun 6, 2014.
- Curo Health Services LLC runs it.
- 8 owners or officers are people: Ronald C Lazas (corporate officer, 0%); David Robinson Arnold (corporate officer, 0%); David Robinson Arnold (runs it (operational or managerial control), 0%); Thomas Joseph Dolan (corporate officer, 0%); Donna M Eversley (managing employee (under contract), 0%); David Allen Causby (corporate officer, 0%); Connie Leech (managing employee (on the payroll), 0%); Janet L Combs (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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ch Services Midco Holdings Inc. | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Feb 5, 2015 |
| Curo Health Services Holdings, Inc. | Owns 5% or more directly | 100% | Jun 6, 2014 |
| Charlotte Midco, LLC | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Aug 11, 2022 |
| Falcon Hospice, LP | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Aug 11, 2022 |
| Charlotte Buyer, Inc. | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Jul 11, 2018 |
| Kah Hospice Company, Inc. | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Mar 1, 2022 |
| Ch Services Group Holdings Inc. | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Feb 5, 2015 |
| Ch Services Holdings Inc. | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Jun 6, 2014 |
| Cd&r Falcon Holdings, LP | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 60% | Aug 11, 2022 |
| Kentucky Homecare Parent Inc. | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 40% | Aug 11, 2022 |
| Kentucky Homecare Holdings, Inc. | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 40% | Aug 11, 2022 |
| Humana Inc. | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 40% | Aug 11, 2022 |
| Centerwell Health Services Inc. | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 40% | Dec 22, 2022 |
| Curo Health Services LLC | Runs it (operational or managerial control) | 0% | Nov 1, 2023 |
What do families say?
- Family caregivers rate it 1 of 5 in CMS’s survey (Oct 1, 2023 to Sep 30, 2025): 68% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 72% would definitely recommend it.
- CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 10 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
- 98.29% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 47.5% had visits from a nurse or social worker on at least 2 of their last 3 days (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
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 | 1 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 6 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 21244, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 11; this one had 36.
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 |
|---|---|
| Heartland Hospice (Baltimore) This hospice | 36 |
| Stella Maris Inc. | 1 |
| Accentcare Hospice & Palliative Care of Maryland | 15 |
| Bridginglife, Inc. | 21 |
| Gilchrist Hospice Care, Inc. | 5 |
| Amedisys Hospice of Greater Chesapeake | 7 |
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.