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: HMG HEALTHCARE (31 facilities, chain avg rating 3.1★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jun 26, 2025
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Jul 20, 2025
$19,143
Fines, last 3 years
3.22
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
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 · Jul 20, 2025 · F-0697 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Why it matters: Untreated pain causes needless suffering and can lead to depression, poor sleep, and declining health.
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: Jul 22, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 19 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · from a complaintF-0628
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaintF-0755
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 complaintF-0761
View all 19 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
Jun 3, 2026
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · from a complaint · F-0628
May 6, 2026
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint · F-0755
Feb 6, 2026
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 24, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint · F-0602
Jul 20, 2025
▲ G · Actual harm, isolated
The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0697
Jun 26, 2025
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694
Jun 26, 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. · F-0689
Jun 26, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal 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. · F-0760
Jun 26, 2025
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. · F-0761
May 14, 2025
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
Mar 13, 2025
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
Mar 13, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
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 2, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
May 2, 2024
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. · F-0761
May 2, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
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 2, 2024
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. · F-0880
May 2, 2024
B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814
Mar 9, 2023
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
Mar 9, 2023
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. · F-0656
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (5 → 4).
Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations:
2
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2024
All citations:
5
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2025
All citations:
9
Serious citations (G–L):
1
2026
All citations:
3
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
2023
2
0
E
2024
5
0
D
2025
9
1
G ▲
2026
3
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.
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
Jun 24, 2025
Fine
$9,110
Jun 27, 2024
Fine
$10,033
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityTexas averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility:
3.22
Texas average:
3.46
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
0.40
Texas average:
0.44
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
2.82
Texas average:
3.04
U.S. average:
3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Measure
This facility
Texas avg
U.S. avg
Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
3.22
3.46
3.95
bottom 41% in Texas; bottom 22% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
0.40
0.44
0.69
top 48% in Texas; bottom 21% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
2.82
3.04
3.50
bottom 40% in Texas; bottom 22% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.46
0.34
0.48
top 18% in Texas; top 39% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
65.6
55.3
45.8
bottom 24% in Texas; bottom 9% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
60.0
54.6
42.9
bottom 42% in Texas; bottom 22% 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 3.19, RN 0.39, weekend 2.79.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.19 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 1/5.
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.
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Cimarron Place Health & 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.
Showing 20 of 41 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 21 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain HMG Healthcare — 31 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.
CMS records place this facility in Nueces, TX — 14 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.