How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Bear Mountain Health and Rehabilitation
500 Beaverdam Road, Asheville, NC 28804 (opens Google Maps) · Buncombe County · (828) 254-8833· 77 certified beds · avg 65 residents/day · certified since Oct 1, 1967 · 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 →
Part of chain: ASCENT HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT (6 facilities, chain avg rating 2.2★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 9, 2025
3
Serious findings on record
most recent Aug 10, 2023
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.82
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
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: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · 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 · Aug 10, 2023 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint
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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Aug 10, 2023 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.
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: Aug 4, 2023 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 16, 2022 · F-0580
The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 16, 2022 · F-0580
The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away.
Why it matters: A family could learn about a serious injury or decline days later, after the chance to act has passed.
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: Jan 9, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 16, 2022 · F-0684
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 16, 2022 · F-0684
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.
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: Jan 9, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 29 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
The facility did not provide or obtain laboratory tests when a doctor ordered them, or did not promptly report the results back to the doctor who ordered them. · from a complaint F-0773
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
View all 29 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 30, 2025 | 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 |
| Dec 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide or obtain laboratory tests when a doctor ordered them, or did not promptly report the results back to the doctor who ordered them. · from a complaint · F-0773 |
| May 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| May 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| May 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644 |
| May 9, 2025 | 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 |
| May 9, 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 |
| May 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal 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. · F-0690 |
| Mar 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · F-0554 |
| Mar 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644 |
| Mar 7, 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 |
| Mar 7, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition. · F-0638 |
| Mar 7, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867 |
| Aug 10, 2023 | ▲ G · Actual 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 16, 2022 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · F-0580 |
| Dec 16, 2022 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Dec 16, 2022 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Dec 16, 2022 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867 |
| Dec 16, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. · F-0636 |
| Dec 16, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition. · F-0638 |
| Dec 16, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life. · F-0745 |
| Dec 16, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0761 |
| Dec 16, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · F-0655 |
| Dec 16, 2022 | 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. · F-0660 |
| Dec 16, 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 |
| Dec 16, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757 |
| Dec 16, 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 |
| Dec 16, 2022 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Dec 16, 2022 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not perform required COVID-19 testing on residents and staff. · F-0886 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (5 → 6).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 15
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2023
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2024
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 15 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2023 | 1 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 5 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 8 | 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)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityNorth Carolina averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.82
North Carolina average: 4.01
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.57
North Carolina average: 0.64
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.29
North Carolina average: 3.56
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | North Carolina avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.82 | 4.01 | 3.95 | top 39% in North Carolina; top 47% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.57 | 0.64 | 0.69 | top 42% in North Carolina; bottom 48% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.29 | 3.56 | 3.50 | top 48% in North Carolina; bottom 47% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.35 | 0.41 | 0.48 | top 44% in North Carolina; bottom 42% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 60.5 | 49.0 | 45.8 | bottom 23% in North Carolina; bottom 16% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 55.6 | 45.7 | 42.9 | bottom 36% in North Carolina; 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 3.28, RN 0.49, weekend 2.83.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.28 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Bear Mountain Health and Rehabilitation. 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 →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nebo Holdco LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 05/01/2024 |
| Badimu, Kamuina | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2025 |
| Badimu, Kamuina | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2025 |
| Crum, Katherine | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2025 |
| Crum, Katherine | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2025 |
| Friedman, Yisroel | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2024 |
All 6 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Ascent Healthcare Management — 6 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Elevate Health and Rehabilitation — Asheville, NC · overall 1/5
- Hilltop Health and Rehabilitation — Rutherfordton, NC · overall 3/5
- Orchard Valley Health and Rehabilitation — Hendersonville, NC · overall 1/5
- Sapphire Ridge Health and Rehabilitation — Brevard, NC · overall 2/5
- Swannanoa Valley Health and Rehabilitation — Swannanoa, NC · overall 3/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "When a doctor orders lab work, how quickly is it done and how are results communicated back?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
- "How do you identify and arrange specialized services for residents with mental health conditions or disabilities?"
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 61% 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 23 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emerald Ridge Health and Rehabilitation | 2.8 mi | Asheville, NC | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| River Bend Health and Rehabilitation | 3.7 mi | Asheville, NC | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| The Laurels of Summit Ridge | 4.3 mi | Asheville, NC | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Elevate Health and Rehabilitation | 4.7 mi | Asheville, NC | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| The Greens at Weaverville | 4.8 mi | Weaverville, NC | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| The Laurels of Greentree Ridge | 5.4 mi | Asheville, NC | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Stonecreek Health and Rehabilitation | 5.5 mi | Asheville, NC | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Swannanoa Valley Health and Rehabilitation | 6.0 mi | Swannanoa, NC | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Aston Park Health Care Center | 6.6 mi | Asheville, NC | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| NC State Veterans Home - Black Mountain | 9.0 mi | Black Mountain, NC | ★★★★★ | 3/5 | |
| Deerfield Episcopal Retirement | 9.1 mi | Asheville, NC | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Pisgah Manor Health Care Center | 9.5 mi | Candler, NC | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Buncombe, NC — 19 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Biltmore Haven Nursing and Rehabilitation — Arden, NC · overall 1/5SFF
- Black Mountain Neuro-Medical Treatment Center — Black Mountain, NC · overall 5/5
- Fleshers Fairview Health Care — Fairview, NC · overall 2/5
- Givens Health Center — Asheville, NC · overall 5/5
- Highland Farms — Black Mountain, NC · overall 5/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 345010.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).