Hearth Record

Heartland Hospice (Beltsville)

A hospice in Beltsville, Maryland 20705

11720 Beltsville Dr Ste 900, Beltsville, Maryland 20705. (240) 264-1692.

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. 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.

The last 24 months 25 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Sep 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?

25 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 10 hospices serving ZIP code 20705 had 10.

The last inspection on record was on Sep 27, 2024: a reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care.

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

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

25 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.

Sep 27, 2024: reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care25 deficiencies
  • 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 completed a table top drill in September 2024, however there was no evidence of previous drills or real events documented for 2023.”

    Rule E0039. Standard-level.

  • Notice of rights and responsibilities (42 CFR 418.52(a)(2))

    The inspectors’ words, 109 words

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 19 (Patients #5,#11,#14) 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. Patient 5: There was no evidence the legally authorized patient representative received written information about policies on advance directives. The daughter in law of the patient signed all consents without documentation of authority needed per Maryland laws regarding surrogacy. The patient has two living sons with legal authority according to the state. Patients 11, 14: There was no evidence the legally authorized patient representative received written information about policies on advance directives.”

    Rule L0503. Standard-level.

  • Notice of rights and responsibilities (42 CFR 418.52(a)(3))

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #5) 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. Patient 5: There was no evidence the legally authorized patient representative received a copy of Patient’s Rights and Responsibilities. The daughter in law of the patient signed all consents without documentation of authority needed per Maryland laws regarding surrogacy. The patient has two living sons with legal authority according to the state.”

    Rule L0504. Standard-level.

  • Exercise of rights/respect for proprty/person (42 CFR 418.52(b)(3))

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #5) did not have evidence that if a state court has not adjudged a patient incompetent, any legal representative designated by the patient in accordance with state law may exercise the patient’s rights to the extent allowed by state law. Patient 5: The daughter in law of the patient signed all consents without documentation of authority needed per Maryland laws regarding surrogacy. The patient has two living sons with legal authority according to the state.”

    Rule L0507. Standard-level.

  • Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(4))

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #5) did not have evidence that the patient chooses a health care provider, including an attending physician. Patient 5: There was no evidence the legally authorized patient representative chose an attending physician. The daughter in law of the patient signed all consents without documentation of authority needed per Maryland laws regarding surrogacy. The patient has two living sons with legal authority according to the state.”

    Rule L0515. Standard-level.

  • Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(5))

    The inspectors’ words, 95 words

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 19 (Patients #5,#11,#14) did not have evidence of the appropriate documentation for release of confidential information. Patient 5: There was no evidence the legally authorized patient representative signed appropriate documentation for the release of confidential information. The daughter in law of the patient signed all consents without documentation of authority needed per Maryland laws regarding surrogacy. The patient has two living sons with legal authority according to the state. Patients 11,14: There was no evidence the legally authorized patient representative signed appropriate documentation for the release of confidential information.”

    Rule L0516. Standard-level.

  • Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(7))

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #5) did not have evidence that the patient received information about the services covered under the hospice benefit. Patient 5: There was no evidence the legally authorized patient representative received information about the services covered under the hospice benefit. The daughter in law of the patient signed all consents without documentation of authority needed per Maryland laws regarding surrogacy. The patient has two living sons with legal authority according to the state.”

    Rule L0518. Standard-level.

  • Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(8))

    The inspectors’ words, 95 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #5) did not have evidence that the patient received information about the scope of services that the hospice will provide and specific limitations on those services. Patient 5: There was no evidence the legally authorized patient representative received information about the scope of services covered by hospice services and the limitations on those services. The daughter in law of the patient signed all consents without documentation of authority needed per Maryland laws regarding surrogacy. The patient has two living sons with legal authority according to the state.”

    Rule L0519. Standard-level.

  • Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(6))

    The inspectors’ words, 231 words

    “Upon patient record review, 5 of 19 (Patients #5,#7,#8,#9,#12) 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 5: The medication profile contained oxygen with no delivery method. Corrected on site. Patient 7: The medication profile contained oxygen. Upon home visit, the caregiver stated the patient does not have oxygen. Corrected on site. Patient 8: The medication profile contained oxygen. Upon home visit, it was observed there was no oxygen in the home. Corrected on site. Patient 9: The medication profile contained differing tramadol doses dated 9/10/24 with administration of one 50mg tablet at bedtime and half a 50mg tablet at bedtime with no instructions to administer together for a total of 75mg. Corrected on site. Patient 12: During the home visit, the Director of Nursing at the ALF stated the patient does not have oxygen or senna syrup that was identified on the hospice medication profile. The ALF medication profile also had liquid hyoscyamine instead of tablets, a daily multi-vitamin, docusate tablets, acetaminophen tablets, and an albuterol inhaler that was not on the hospice medication profile.”

    Rule L0530. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 94 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #6) 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 6: The medical record contained an initial bereavement assessment 8/6/24 with start of care 7/25/24.”

    Rule L0531. Standard-level.

  • Approach to service delivery (42 CFR 418.56(a)(1))

    The inspectors’ words, 209 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 19 (Patients #2,#8,#14,#18) did not have evidence that a Registered Nurse is designated to ensure continuous assessment of the patient and family’s needs and to coordinate 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 2: The medical record contained documentation identifying patient wound. There was no evidence of wound measurements completed from 8/23/24 to 9/12/24 as required per agency wound policy. Patient 8: The medical record contained wound care orders 9/11/24. There was no evidence of weekly wound measurements and assessments documented on the wound as required per agency wound policy. Patient 14: The medical record contained documentation identifying patient wound to left heel. There was no evidence of weekly wound measurements and assessments between 8/23/24 to 9/3/24 as required per agency wound policy. Patient 18: The medical record contained an order for change in level of care from GIP to routine level of care 7/29/24 upon discharge from the hospital. There was no evidence of any attempts of an RN to call or to make visits until 8/5/24 when patient’s daughter stated they signed on with a different hospice company.”

    Rule L0540. Standard-level.

  • Plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(b))

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #2) did not have evidence that the hospice follows the individualized plan of care developed in in collaboration with the attending physician (if any), the patient or representative, and the primary caregiver in accordance with the patient’s needs if any of them so desire. Patient 2: There was no evidence of collaboration with the attending physician for the development of the plan of care.”

    Rule L0543. Standard-level.

  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))

    The inspectors’ words, 256 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 19 (Patients #2,#5,#8,#12) 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 patient was a high risk for skin impairment and issues with bradycardia as low as 36 beats per minute documented 9/6/24. There was no evidence of problems, goals, and interventions related to skin and cardiac dysfunction included in the plan of care. Corrected on site. Patient 5: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying patient was a high risk for skin impairment and had issues with respiratory dysfunction requiring use of oxygen. There was no evidence of problems, goals, and interventions related to skin and respiratory dysfunction included in the plan of care. Patient 8: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying patient was high fall risk. There was no evidence of problems, goals, and interventions related to fall safety included in the plan of care. Corrected on site. Patient 12: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying patient issues with dysphagia requiring a pureed diet. There was no evidence of problems, goals, and interventions related to dysphagia included in the plan of care.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(4))

    The inspectors’ words, 91 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 19 (Patients #5,#9) 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 5: The medical record contained an order for oxygen with no delivery method. Corrected on site. Patient 9: The medical record contained two differing orders for tramadol 9/10/24 with administration of one 50mg tablet at bedtime and half of a 50mg tablet at bedtime without instructions to administer together. Corrected on site.”

    Rule L0549. Standard-level.

  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(5))

    The inspectors’ words, 437 words

    “Upon patient record review, 10 of 19 (Patients #1,#2,#3,#5,#6,#8,#9,#10,#12,#13) 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 recertification 8/2/24 identifying patient use of a commode, walker, and over the bed table. There was no evidence of orders for the listed equipment included in the plan of care. Corrected on site. Patient 2: The medical record contained an order for a suction machine by error. There was no evidence the equipment was needed by the patient or in the patient’s home. Corrected on site. Patient 3: The medical record contained orders for catheter, wound, and ostomy supplies by error. There was no evidence the supplies were utilized by the patient. Patient 5: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying patient use of a wheelchair. There was no evidence of an order for the wheelchair included in the plan of care. Corrected Patient 6: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying patient use of a hospital bed and walker. There was no evidence of orders for the equipment included in the plan of care. Patient 8: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying patient use of a wheelchair. There was no evidence of an order for the wheelchair included in the plan of care and an inappropriate order for oxygen equipment that was entered in error. The patient did not have oxygen in the home. Corrected on site. Patient 9: The medical record contained orders for catheter, IV, and wound supplies, an APP mattress and heel protectors by error. There was no evidence the supplies and equipment were utilized by the patient. Corrected on site. The record also contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying patient use of a wheelchair. There was no evidence of an order for a wheelchair included in the plan of care. Patient 10: The medical record contained nursing documentation since admission identifying patient use of a hospital bed and over bed table. There was no evidence of or orders for the equipment included in the plan of care. Patient 12: The medical record contained nursing documentation 8/16/24 identifying patient use of a hospital bed. There was no evidence of an order for the bed included in the plan of care. Corrected on site. Patient 13: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon recertification 8/29/24 identifying patient use of bedrails. There was no evidence of an order for the rails included in the plan of care. Corrected on site.”

    Rule L0550. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 121 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 19 (Patients #3,#9) 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 3: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon recertification 7/23/24 identifying patient issue with respiratory dysfunction requiring use of oxygen. There was no evidence the plan of care was updated to include problems, goals, and interventions related to respiratory dysfunction. Patient 9: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon recertification 7/17/24 identifying patient difficulty with swallowing requiring education on aspiration precautions. There was no evidence the plan of care was updated to include problems, goals, and interventions related to dysphagia.”

    Rule L0553. Standard-level.

  • Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(2))

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #1) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient 1: The medical record contained an order to arrange for a PT assessment and treat with 3 visits. There was no follow up on arrangement of services and the patient did not receive the therapy as ordered.”

    Rule L0555. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 102 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 19 (Patients #15,#17) did not have evidence the hospice offers bereavement counseling that includes: • Making bereavement services available to the family and other individuals in the bereavement plan of care up to 1 year following the death of the patient. • Ensuring that bereavement services reflect the needs of the bereaved and are completed per care plan. Patients 15, 17: There was no evidence of bereavement tasks completed past the 2 week letter and sympathy card. Assigned tasks in the bereavement care plans included 6 month phone call, quarterly newsletters, and quarterly support group invitations.”

    Rule L0596. Standard-level.

  • Hospice aide assignments and duties (42 CFR 418.76(g)(1))

    The inspectors’ words, 125 words

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 19 (Patients #4,#9,#12) did not have evidence in the patient record that hospice aide assignments and duties are specific to the patient needs. Patient 4,9: The aide care plan contained a task to transfer patient with no instructions of the level of assistance needed to transfer. Corrected on site. Patient 12: The aide care plan contained a task to transfer patient with no instructions of the level of assistance needed to transfer, and instructions for use of a walker despite nursing documentation patient was bedbound since admission. The medical record also contained nursing documentation 9/6/24 identifying patient need for aspiration precautions. There was no evidence of instructions for the aide regarding aspiration precautions included in the aide care plan.”

    Rule L0625. Standard-level.

  • 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 annual utilization rate for volunteers in 2023 was 3%.”

    Rule L0647. Standard-level.

  • Initial certification of terminal illness (42 CFR 418.102(b))

    The inspectors’ words, 109 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #14) did not have evidence that the medical director or physician designee provides written certification that it is anticipated that the patient’s life expectancy is 6 months or less if the illness runs its normal course. The physician must consider the following when making this determination: • The primary terminal condition • Related diagnosis • Current subjective and objective medical findings • Current medication and treatment orders • Information about the medical management of any of the patient’s conditions unrelated to the terminal illness Patient 14: There was no evidence of a written certification in the initial CTI upon admission 6/10/24.”

    Rule L0667. Standard-level.

  • Recertification of the terminal illness (42 CFR 418.102(c))

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #10) did not have evidence that before the recertification period for each patient, the medical director or physician designee must review the patient’s clinical information and provide written documentation that it is anticipated that the patient’s life expectancy is 6 months or less. Patient 10: There was no evidence of a verbal certification received timely for the benefit period starting 7/6/24 to 9/3/24. The medical director signed the written certification 8/13/24.”

    Rule L0668. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(2))

    The inspectors’ words, 109 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 19 (Patients #2,#5) did not have evidence that each patient record contains: • Signed copies of the notice of patient rights in accordance with 418.52 • Signed election statement in accordance with 418.24 Patient 2: The medical record contained an election form identifying the election date as 5/16/24. Start of care did not occur until 5/17/24. Patient 5: There was no evidence the legally authorized patient representative received the patient rights and signed the election statement. The daughter in law of the patient signed all consents without documentation of authority needed per Maryland laws regarding surrogacy given the patient has two living sons.”

    Rule L0673. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(5))

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #2) did not have evidence that each patient record contains Physician certification and recertification of terminal illness. Patient 2: There was no evidence of a certification of terminal illness received from the attending physician.”

    Rule L0676. Standard-level.

  • Label dispose storage drugs (42 CFR 418.106(e)(2)(i)(C))

    The inspectors’ words, 95 words

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 19 (Patient #5,#11,#14) did not have evidence that the written policies and procedures for managing controlled drugs was provided and discussed. Patient 5: There was no evidence the legally authorized patient representative received written policies and procedures for managing controlled drugs. The daughter in law of the patient signed all consents without documentation of authority needed per Maryland laws regarding surrogacy given the patient has two living sons. Patient 11, 14: There was no evidence the legally authorized patient representative received written policies and procedures for managing controlled drugs.”

    Rule L0697. Standard-level.

The one inspection in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Sep 27, 2024Reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care25 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Nov 6, 2003.
  • 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): 10.3 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 3.8% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 79.8% of patients who died.
  • Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 48% at home, 26% in assisted living, 25% in a nursing facility, 1% in a skilled nursing facility.
Source:

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

Staffing measures
MeasureThis provider
Nurse care minutes per routine home care day10.3 min
Skilled nursing minutes at weekends3.8%
Visits near death79.8% of patients who died

Who owns it?

  • Curo Health Services Holdings, Inc. owns 100% directly since Jun 6, 2014.
  • 8 owners or officers are people: Nader Tavakoli-Jalili (managing employee (under contract)); Ronald C Lazas (corporate officer, 0%); David Robinson Arnold (corporate officer, 0%); David Robinson Arnold (runs it (operational or managerial control), 0%); Sara Hollrah (managing employee (on the payroll), 0%); Thomas Joseph Dolan (corporate officer, 0%); David Allen Causby (corporate officer, 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.
Source:

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

Organisations CMS lists
OrganisationRoleShareSince
Ch Services Midco Holdings Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Feb 5, 2015
Curo Health Services Holdings, Inc.Owns 5% or more directly100%Jun 6, 2014
Ch Services Group Holdings, Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Feb 15, 2015
Charlotte Midco, LLCOwns 5% or more through other companies100%Aug 11, 2018
Falcon Hospice, LPOwns 5% or more through other companies100%Aug 11, 2022
Charlotte Buyer, Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Jul 11, 2018
Kah Hospice Company, Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Mar 1, 2022
Ch Services Holdings Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Jun 6, 2014
Cd&r Falcon Holdings, LPOwns 5% or more through other companies60%Aug 11, 2022
Kentucky Homecare Parent Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies40%Aug 11, 2018
Kentucky Homecare Holdings, Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies40%Aug 11, 2022
Humana Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies40%Aug 11, 2022
Centerwell Health Services Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies40%Aug 11, 2022

What do families say?

  • Family caregivers rate it 1 of 5 in CMS’s survey (Oct 1, 2023 to Sep 30, 2025): 65% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 59% would definitely recommend it.
  • CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 9 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
  • 98.44% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 36.1% 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 51 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 10 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 20705, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 10; this one had 25.
Source:

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

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

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 8, 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.