Family Hospice Ltd DBA Gentiva
A hospice in Hobbs, New Mexico 88240
1515 West Calle Sur Street, Suite 129, Hobbs, New Mexico 88240. (575) 392-2060.
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.
- 18 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?
18 deficiencies cited in the last three years
The middle of the 4 hospices serving ZIP code 88240 had 6.
The last inspection on record was on Jan 15, 2025: a complaint inspection by the state.
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
18 deficiencies in 2 months of the last 36. Last cited May 2024. 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.
May 2, 2024: complaint inspection by the state2 deficiencies
-
Patients’ rights (42 CFR 418.52)
“Based on record review and interview the agency failed to meet the Condition of Participation to ensure patients are free from mistreatment and neglect for 1 (P [Patient] 1) of 11 (P1-P11) patients reviewed for care received by the agency. This deficient practice can lead to increased suffering and pain by not identifying and treating injuries that are unrelated to the reason the patient was admitted to hospice. The findings are: A. The agency failed to identify and treat a new onset injury. Refer to tag L-0517.”
-
Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(6))
The inspectors’ words, 1,314 words
“Based on record review and interview the agency failed to identify and treat a new onset injury for 1 (P [Patient]1) of 11 (P1-P11) patients reviewed for care received by the agency. This deficient practice can lead to increased suffering and pain for the patient that is on hospice and has unrelated medical concerns. The findings are: A. Record review of the agencys policy titled, “;Physician Service – Medical Director/Hospice Physician” dated 10/11/2023 included a table that lists hospice physicians duties and responsibilities, the third box stated, “;Acting as primary physician for patients whose referring/attending physicians desire to relinquish that care and/or if the referring/attending physicians are not available for further contact.” B. Record review the agencys policy titled, “;Patient Bill of Rights” dated 01/12/2023 stated, “;Each patient will be an active, informed participant in his/her plan of care. To ensure this process, the patient will be empowered with certain rights as described. The rights contained within this policy include the basic rights of the patient. A patient may designate someone to act as his/her representative. This representative, on behalf of the patient, may exercise any of the rights provided by the policies and procedures established by the hospice. . .” C. Record review of P1s medical record revealed the following: 1. Patient information under “;Physician Info” revealed the hospice doctor was listed as the patients primary physician. 2. Provider Note dated 01/11/2023 stated “;This [patient] has a terminal hospice diagnosis of dysphagia [trouble swallowing], related to CVA [cerebrovascular accident, stroke] in 2019. . . Related diagnoses include pneumonia [infection in the lungs] and respiratory failure [condition that makes it difficult to breathe] with possible aspiration [when something is swallowed and enters the lungs]. . .” 3. Legal document of guardianship dated 11/15/2023 titled, “;Order appointing full guardian” revealed that P1 is incapacitated and requires a full guardian to provide continuing care and supervision. 4. Nursing note dated 11/30/2023 under assessment of orientation status stated, “;Patient unable to understand and participate in care.” 5. Nursing note dated, 12/03/2023, stated “;PRN [as needed] visit due to change in pt [patient] condition. CG [caregiver] . . . called and reported pts left upper arm was swollen. Pt in bed, arms assessed bilaterally [both sides]; left upper arm is swollen, hard on lateral aspect [outer side], no signs of pain noted upon palpation [feel]; temp and color to both arms are the same, radial [wrist] pulses equal bilaterally. No s/s [signs or symptoms] of a DVT [clot] or cellulitis [infection] noted. . .” 6. Nursing note dated, 12/06/2023, stated “;Routine RN [Registered Nurse] visit. Was called to go over to see pt as her arm is getting worse. Health aides with pt. Tried to call guardian but no answer. Health aides stated her [bruising] is getting worse adn [sic] seems like pain is worsening. Pt grimaces and gets tense when arm is moved. Bruising noted to left [upper] inner arm down to the midle [sic] of her hand. [swelling] noted and is hard to touch. All VITLS [vital signs] obtained. . . . Called guardian. Spoke with her she requested [name of doctor] come see pt and if she thinks her arm is broken they will take her off hospice for further care. Spoke with [name of doctor] she stated she will come look at it after IDG [interdisciplinary group] meeting is over. Informed her guardian is wanting an Xray [digital image of internal body parts in this case bone]. . . .” 7. Provider note dated, 12/6/2023, stated under history, “;. . . She initially came on to hospice services November of 2020 but revoked in January of 2021 as she chose aggressive care for abdominal distention. She was readmitted to hospice related to further decline in January of 2023. About 3 days [ago] hospice was contacted related to [what] would appear to be a scratch in the left arm at the elbow medially [middle]. Initially there was no visible bruising noted, however over the next 3 days bruising began to appear in the left upper and lower arm.” Under assessment it stated, “;L [left] arm bruising likely related to soft tissue injuries during recent transfer for outings and nutritionist appointment yesterday. No clinical evidence of fractures.” Under plan stated, “;Spoke with new guardian. . . Explained that in view of these recent injuries it is time to stop transferring the patient and allow her to stay in bed 24/7. . .” 8. Nursing note dated, 12/18/2023, stated “;Routine RN visit. Recived [sic] a call from CG stating pts arm was popping when moved. Pt laying in bed with eyes half opened. [Caregiver] stated pt is doing well other than her arm. She stated pt appeared to be in pain whne [sic] left [arm] was moved. All vitals obtained. . . .mild edema [swelling] noted to left upper arm. [Bruising] noted to left arm but is getting better. CG raised pts arm and moved it in different poositions [sic] this RN held her arm. No popping [noises] heard or felt upon palpation. Gaurdian [sic] requested pt be taken for xrays. Spoke with [name of hospice doctor] [and] she stated she did not [suggest] pt be taken for xrays when no obvious injuries were noted upon assessment. . .” a. Nurses assessment dated 12/18/2023 revealed that patient was prescribed an opioid medication (medication class used to treat pain). The medications documented are hydrocodone (pain medication) and oxycodone (pain medication). It was documented “;Has patient required this medication for PRN [as needed] breakthrough pain? No” 9. Nursing note dated, 12/20/2023, stated “;. . . Swelling and bruising in arm is getting better. . . CG stated they did not need anything at time of visit. . .” a. Nurses assessment dated 12/20/2023 revealed that patient was prescribed an opioid medication (medication class used to treat pain). The medications documented are hydrocodone. It was documented “;Has patient required this medication for PRN [as needed] breakthrough pain? No” 10. Nursing note dated, 12/26/2023, stated “;. . . CG stated pt is still but lethargic. [sic]. CG [name] said pt is sleeping 20 hours a day. . . Pts left arm is in a sling due to pathological fracture. . .” a. Nurses assessment dated 12/26/2023 revealed that patient was prescribed an opioid medication (medication class used to treat pain). The medications documented are Norco (hydrocodone-acetaminophen, pain medication) and Roxanol (morphine, pain medication). It was documented “;Has patient required this medication for PRN [as needed] breakthrough pain? No” 11. Nursing noted dated, 01/02/2024, stated “;. . . CG stated she went [for an xray] Friday before last and was found her left was brokend [sic] and she has it casted now. . .” 12. Nursing note dated, 01/04/2024 stated, “;Routine RN visit. Pt laying in bed awake and alert. CG state she has been in a god [sic] mood today. Stated she ha s [sic] been laughing all day. Pt laughed all through visit. . .” D. During an interview on 05/01/2024 at 9:35 AM with S (Staff)9, P1s personal caregiver, it was confirmed that it took several weeks and more than one request to get patient an X-ray. S9 stated they (the guardian and caregiver) decided to take her to get an X-ray on 12/21/2023 because the patients arm swelling and bruising had gotten worse. E. During an interview with on 05/01/2024 at 1:00 PM with S12, Medical Doctor, it was confirmed that she did not advise the patient to get an X-ray or present to the hospital for new bruising and swelling of the left arm because she felt the transfer to the hospital would have been cruel. When asked why she would not treat a fracture, S12 stated a cast would be uncomfortable and “;maybe she (P1) should not be on hospice if the caregivers want everything done [for assessing the reason for patients arm swelling and bruising]”.”
Mar 14, 2024: reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care16 deficiencies
-
Timeframe for completion of assessment (42 CFR 418.54(b))
“Upon patient record review 1 of 19 (Patient #2) 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 2: The medical record contained an initial comprehensive spiritual assessment 2/21/24 with start of care 8/29/23.”
-
Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c))
“Upon patient record review 1 of 19 (Patient #3) did not have evidence in the patient record that the comprehensive assessment identifies the physical, psychosocial, emotional, and spiritual needs related to the terminal illness that must be addressed in order to promote the hospice patient’s well-being, comfort, and dignity throughout the dying process. Patient 3: There was no evidence of a comprehensive spiritual assessment.”
-
Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(6))
The inspectors’ words, 209 words
“Upon patient record review, 7 of 19 (Patients #8,#9,#10,#11,#12,#13,#14) did not have evidence in the patient record that a review was completed of all prescription and non-prescription medications. Patient 8: The medical record contained an order for oxygen supplies 1/18/24. There was no evidence of oxygen on the medication profile. The profile contained Voltaren topical gel with no area defined for administration. Corrected on site. Patient 9: The medication profile contained duplicative Seroquel listings. Corrected on site. Patient 10: The medication profile contained differing albuterol nebulization PRN orders for four times daily and every two hours. Corrected on site. Patient 11: The medication profile contained duplicative scheduled Miralax listings. Corrected on site. Patient 12: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying patient use of continuous oxygen. There was no evidence of oxygen instructions on the medication profile. The profile also contained Aspercreme topical patch with no area defined for administration. Corrected on site. Patient 13: The medication profile contained two differing docusate sodium listing for 100mg twice daily and 250 mg every other day. There was no evidence of instructions to take both as instructed together. Corrected on site. Patient 14: The medication profile contained lidocaine topical patch with no area defined for administration. Corrected on site.”
-
Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(7))
The inspectors’ words, 132 words
“Upon patient record review, 4 of 19 (Patients #5,#9,#12,#14) 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 5: There was no evidence of a bereavement assessment. Patient 9: There was no evidence of a bereavement assessment. Patient 12: The medical record contained an initial bereavement assessment completed 8/8/23 with start of care 6/18/23. Patient 14: The medical record contained an initial bereavement assessment completed 2/28/24 with start of care 2/17/24.”
-
Approach to service delivery (42 CFR 418.56(a)(1))
The inspectors’ words, 151 words
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 19 (Patients #10,#11) 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 10: The medical record contained nursing documentation identifying a UA/UC was ordered 3/4/24, collected and delivered to lab 3/6/24, and results were positive for UTI 3/11/24 with antibiotics ordered. Nursing documentation on visit 3/7/24 indicates patient ongoing with symptoms. There was no evidence of assessments, communication with the lab, or communication with the physician between 3/7/24 and 3/11/24. Patient 11: The medical record contained nursing documentation identifying a UA/UC was ordered 2/21/24. There was no evidence of RN follow up on results. Corrected on site with late entry documentation.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))
The inspectors’ words, 116 words
“Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #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 14: The medical record identified patient’s primary diagnosis is heart failure and patient is insulin dependent. There was no evidence of problems, goals, and interventions related to cardiac and endocrine dysfunction included in the plan of care. Corrected on site.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(2))
The inspectors’ words, 130 words
“Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #8) did not have evidence the plan of care must includes all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions, including the following: • A detailed statement of the scope and frequency of services necessary to meet the specific patient and family needs • The IDG demonstrates a proactive approach in developing each patient’s plan of care by planning ahead for anticipated patient changes and needs. Decisions should reflect the patient/family preferences rather than be solely a response to a crisis. Patient 8: The medical record contained evidence the patient was receiving social work services. The current frequency order inaccurately stated social work was declined and did not define anticipated patient needs requested for monthly visits.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(4))
The inspectors’ words, 185 words
“Upon patient record review, 4 of 19 (Patients #8,#12,#13,#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 medications and treatments. Patient 8: The medical record contained an order for oxygen supplies and an order for Voltaren topical gel with no area defined for administration. There was no evidence of an order for oxygen dose, frequency, and delivery method. Corrected on site. Patient 12: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying patient use of continuous oxygen. There was no evidence of an order for oxygen rate, frequency and delivery method. The record also contained an order for Aspercreme topical patch with no area defined for administration. Corrected on site. Patient 13: The medical record contained two differing docusate sodium orders for 100mg twice daily and 250 mg every other day. There was no evidence of instructions to take both as instructed together. Corrected on site. Patient 14: The medical record contained an order for lidocaine topical patch with no area defined for administration. Corrected on site.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(5))
The inspectors’ words, 110 words
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 19 (Patients #8,#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 8: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying patient use of a walker and nebulizer. There was no evidence of orders for the equipment included in the plan of care. Corrected on site. Patient 13: 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 on site.”
-
Review of the plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(d))
“Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #19) 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 19: There was no evidence the plan of care was updated to reflect discharge planning. Patient was discharged for extended prognosis 2/2/24.”
-
Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(2))
“Upon client 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 orders for spiritual care frequency twice monthly and social work once monthly. There was no evidence of a second spiritual care visit in January and no social work visit in January.”
-
Hospice aide assignments and duties (42 CFR 418.76(g)(1))
The inspectors’ words, 92 words
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 19 (Patients #1,#14) did not have evidence in the patient record that hospice aide assignments and duties are individualized to patient needs. Patient 1: The medical record contained nursing documentation 2/3/24 identifying patient is a max assist for transfers. There was no evidence of transfer instructions included on the aide care plan. Corrected on site. Patient 14: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying patient is wheelchair bound. There was no evidence of transfer instructions included on the aide care plan. Corrected on site.”
-
Hospice aide assignments and duties (42 CFR 418.76(g)(2))
“Upon patient record review 1 of 19 (Patient #14) did not have evidence documentation in the patient record that a hospice aide provides services that are: • Ordered by the interdisciplinary group Patient 14: The medical record contained an ordered aide frequency of twice weekly. There was no evidence of a second visit completed the week of 2/25/24. Corrected on site with late entry of reason for missed frequency.”
-
Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(2))
“Upon patient client record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #10) did not have evidence that each patient record contains: • Signed election statement in accordance with 418.24 Patient 10: The medical record contained an election of benefit form identifying patient representative elected to receive the Notification of Non-Covered Items upon admission 1/3/24. The notification form was received 1/12/24 outside of the 5 day allowable time frame.”
-
Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(7))
“Upon patient client record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #19) did not evidence that each patient record contains physician orders. Patient 19: There was no evidence of an order to discharge patient due to extended prognosis. Patient was discharged 2/2/24.”
-
Inpatient care provided under arrangements (42 CFR 418.108(c)(5))
“Upon inpatient contract review, 1 of 6 (Roswell Hospital GIP contract) did not have evidence that the hospice retains responsibility for ensuring that the training of personnel who will be providing the patient’s care in the inpatient facility has been provided and that a description of the training and the names of those giving the training are documented.”
All 3 inspections in the last three years
| Date | Visit | What the record says |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 15, 2025 | Complaint inspection by the state | No deficiencies cited |
| May 2, 2024 | Complaint inspection by the state | 2 deficiencies cited |
| Mar 14, 2024 | Reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care | 16 deficiencies cited |
Is it certified?
- Medicare-certified hospice since Mar 19, 1991.
- 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.
- 2 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, 7% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 94.5% of patients who died.
- Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 63% at home, 12% in assisted living, 17% in a nursing facility, 7% in a skilled nursing facility, 1% elsewhere.
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 | 7% |
| Visits near death | 94.5% of patients who died |
Who owns it?
- 6 owners or officers are people: Ronald C Lazas (corporate officer, 0%); David Robinson Arnold (corporate officer, 0%); Thomas Joseph Dolan (corporate officer, 0%); David Allen Causby (corporate officer, 0%); Janet L Combs (corporate officer, 0%); Nancy Herrera Martinez (managing employee (on the payroll), 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% | Mar 1, 2022 |
| Curo Health Services Holdings, Inc. | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Mar 1, 2022 |
| Odyssey Healthcare Inc. | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Mar 6, 2008 |
| 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 |
| Vistacare USA, LLC | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Mar 1, 2022 |
| Charlotte Buyer, Inc. | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Mar 1, 2022 |
| Curo Health Services LLC | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Mar 1, 2022 |
| Odyssey Healthcare Holding Company | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Mar 6, 2008 |
| Vista Hospice Care, LLC | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Mar 1, 2022 |
| Kah Hospice Company, Inc. | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Mar 1, 2022 |
| Vistacare LLC | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Jun 30, 1998 |
| Ch Services Group Holdings Inc. | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Mar 1, 2022 |
| Ch Services Holdings Inc. | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Mar 1, 2022 |
| 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% | Aug 11, 2022 |
What do families say?
- Family caregivers rate it 4 of 5 in CMS’s survey (Oct 1, 2023 to Sep 30, 2025): 84% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 88% would definitely recommend it.
- CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 10 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
- 97.17% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 75.7% 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 4 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 88240, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 6; this one had 18.
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 |
|---|---|
| Family Hospice Ltd DBA Gentiva This hospice | 18 |
| Star Hospice LLC | Not given |
| Enhabit Hospice | 6 |
| Excelacare Hospice | 3 |
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.