Arizona State Veteran Home-Phx

4141 North S Herrera Way, Phoenix, AZ 85012 (opens Google Maps) · Maricopa County · (602) 248-1550· 200 certified beds · avg 96 residents/day · certified since Jan 8, 1996 · Medicare and Medicaid certified

Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →

Abuse citation flag (CMS)

What the abuse flag means →

The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.

1/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

inspected May 30, 2025

Serious findings on record

most recent Jan 22, 2025

$23,296

Fines, last 3 years

6.53

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

New to these records? How to read an inspection report →

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · how star ratings work →

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 22, 2025 · F-0760 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.

Why it matters: A serious medication error can cause real harm, hospitalization, or worse.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Apr 15, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 8, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Corrected: Jul 15, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 2, 2023 · F-0690 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections.

Why it matters: Poor continence and catheter care leads to infections, skin breakdown, and loss of dignity.

Corrected: Feb 2, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 39 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

May 5, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint F-0689
Dec 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint F-0600
May 30, 2025F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. F-0851

View all 39 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.

Date	Severity	What the facility was cited for
May 5, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Dec 9, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600
May 30, 2025	F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread	The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. · F-0851
May 30, 2025	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842
May 30, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · F-0645
May 30, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · F-0756
May 15, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint · F-0607
May 15, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint · F-0610
Apr 24, 2025	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint · F-0610
Apr 24, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Feb 19, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Jan 22, 2025	▲ G · Actual harm, isolated	The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint · F-0760
Jan 14, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600
Dec 10, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint · F-0656
Oct 31, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint · F-0658
Sep 23, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
May 24, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842
May 24, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving. · from a complaint · F-0660
May 8, 2024	▲ G · Actual harm, isolated	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Apr 22, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · from a complaint · F-0557
Apr 22, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint · F-0610
Jan 12, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · from a complaint · F-0550
Jan 12, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · from a complaint · F-0561
Nov 30, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint · F-0658
Nov 2, 2023	▲ G · Actual harm, isolated	The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · from a complaint · F-0690
Nov 2, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · from a complaint · F-0761
Nov 2, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint · F-0880
Jul 21, 2023	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · F-0623
Jul 21, 2023	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Jul 21, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · F-0600
Jul 21, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · F-0625
May 26, 2022	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
May 26, 2022	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not make sure its staff were vaccinated for COVID-19 in accordance with the federal requirements in effect at the time. · F-0888
May 26, 2022	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · F-0552
May 26, 2022	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · F-0645
May 26, 2022	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677
May 26, 2022	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
May 26, 2022	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · F-0756
May 26, 2022	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · F-0758

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (4 → 4).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01

All citationsSerious citations (G–L)

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2022	8	0	E
2023	8	1	G ▲
2024	10	1	G ▲
2025	12	1	G ▲
2026	1	0	D

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

How to file a complaint about care →

3 fines totaling $23,296, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.

Date	Type	Amount / length
Dec 10, 2024	Fine	$9,110
Apr 22, 2024	Fine	$6,743
Apr 22, 2024	Payment Denial	3 days from Jul 22, 2024
Nov 2, 2023	Fine	$7,443

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01

This facilityArizona averageU.S. average

Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)

6.53

3.97

3.95

Registered Nurse hours

1.32

0.69

Weekend total nurse staffing

5.62

3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

Measure	This facility	Arizona avg	U.S. avg	Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)	6.53	3.97	3.95	top 4% in Arizona; top 2% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	1.32	0.69	0.69	top 6% in Arizona; top 7% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	5.62	3.50	3.50	top 6% in Arizona; top 3% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.76	0.49	0.48	top 15% in Arizona; top 13% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	29.2	45.2	45.8	top 12% in Arizona; top 13% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	54.8	43.6	42.9	bottom 28% in Arizona; bottom 28% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 5.32, RN 1.08, weekend 4.58.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.32 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.

Quality measures: assessments & claims

Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.

Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Arizona State Veteran Home-Phx. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.

Calculate a stay from a quote you receive

Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.

Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.

Before you compare prices

Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.

Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price

Who owns this facility

How to read ownership records →

Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →

Government - State

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Garcia, Justina	Individual	W-2 Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2021

All 1 owning or managing party CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

"What systems do you use to prevent medication errors, and what happens when one occurs?"
"What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
"How do you care for residents with incontinence or catheters, and what do you do to prevent urinary tract infections?"
"Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
"How do your actual daily staffing levels compare to what's reported on Medicare's Care Compare website?"
"How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
"How do you screen new residents for mental health and disability-related needs, and how do you provide the specialized services they require?"
"Does a pharmacist review every resident's medications and chart monthly, and how are their concerns acted on?"

Also worth asking anywhere

"What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
"Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
"CMS reports 29% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
"Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (12 closest of 59 within 20 miles)

Facility	Distance	City	Overall	Inspection	Flags
Phoenix Mountain Post Acute	1.9 mi	Phoenix, AZ	★★★☆☆	2/5
Ridgecrest Post Acute	4.0 mi	Phoenix, AZ	★★★★★	4/5
Life Care Center of Paradise Valley	4.1 mi	Phoenix, AZ	★★★☆☆	2/5	abuse
The Terraces of Phoenix	4.2 mi	Phoenix, AZ	★★★★★	4/5
North Mountain Medical and Rehabilitation Center	4.7 mi	Phoenix, AZ	★★★★★	5/5
Maryland Gardens Post Acute	5.8 mi	Phoenix, AZ	★★★☆☆	2/5	abuse
Camelback Post Acute Care and Rehabilitation	6.3 mi	Phoenix, AZ	★★★☆☆	2/5
Life Care Center of Scottsdale	6.3 mi	Scottsdale, AZ	★★★★★	4/5
Shea Post Acute Rehabilitation Center	6.3 mi	Scottsdale, AZ	★★★★★	5/5
Advance Health Care of Scottsdale	6.3 mi	Scottsdale, AZ	★★★★★	4/5
Coronado Healthcare Center	6.4 mi	Phoenix, AZ	★★★★★	4/5
Christian Care Nursing Center	6.4 mi	Phoenix, AZ	★★★★☆	4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Maricopa, AZ — 77 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Az - Rio Vista Post Acute and Rehabilitation — Peoria, AZ · overall 5/5
Beatitudes Campus — Phoenix, AZ · overall 3/5
Bella Vita Health and Rehabilitation Center — Glendale, AZ · overall 3/5abuse
Boswell Transitional Care of Cascadia — Sun City, AZ · overall 5/5
Center at Arrowhead, LLC — Glendale, AZ · overall 5/5
Chandler Post Acute and Rehabilitation — Chandler, AZ · overall 4/5

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Phoenix →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 035234.