Arizona ›Tucson

Foothills Rehabilitation Center

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

2250 North Craycroft Road, Tucson, AZ 85712 (opens Google Maps) · Pima County · (520) 733-8700· 149 certified beds · avg 124 residents/day · certified since Aug 18, 1976 · 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: ATIED ASSOCIATES (12 facilities, chain avg rating 1.8★)

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Mar 28, 2026
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Nov 25, 2024
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.28
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 · Nov 25, 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.

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: Nov 26, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Feb 16, 2023 · F-0689

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.

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 25, 2023 (Past Non-Compliance)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 22 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    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

  2. 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

  3. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    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. · from a complaint F-0655

View all 22 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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Mar 28, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Mar 28, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Mar 28, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0655
Mar 28, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 28, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Mar 28, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578
Mar 28, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint · F-0584
Mar 28, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641
Mar 28, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · from a complaint · F-0657
Mar 28, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Mar 28, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Aug 1, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jul 21, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jun 25, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
May 1, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 4, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 25, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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 16, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Feb 16, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Feb 16, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Feb 16, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (1 → 11).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2024
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 0

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

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202341G ▲
202421G ▲
202550D
2026110E

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 →

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

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)
This facility: 3.28
Arizona average: 3.97
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.57
Arizona average: 0.69
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.07
Arizona average: 3.50
U.S. average: 3.50

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

MeasureThis facilityArizona avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.283.973.95bottom 22% in Arizona; bottom 26% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.570.690.69bottom 42% in Arizona; bottom 48% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.073.503.50bottom 35% in Arizona; bottom 34% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.490.490.48top 35% in Arizona; top 34% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)22.845.245.8top 6% in Arizona; top 5% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)15.843.642.9top 9% in Arizona; top 9% 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 4.07, RN 0.71, weekend 3.80.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.07 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: 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 Foothills Rehabilitation Center. 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 / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Rothner, DanielIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest7%10/05/2011
Rothner, MelissaIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest7%10/05/2011
Rothner, RachelIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest7%10/05/2011
Rothner, WilliamIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest40%10/05/2011
Okeke, PatrickIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE03/06/2017
Zimmerman, JoeIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2012

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 Atied Associates — 12 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.

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 11 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.

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 is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
  • "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
  • "What does the care plan for a brand-new resident cover in the first 48 hours, and who writes it?"
  • "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
  • "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
  • "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
  • "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Arizona midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
  • "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
  • "CMS reports 23% 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 21 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Handmaker Home for the Aging0.1 miTucson, AZ★★★☆☆2/5abuse
Sabino Canyon Rehabilitation & Care Center0.7 miTucson, AZ★★★★☆3/5
Santa Rosa Care Center0.7 miTucson, AZ★★★☆☆2/5abuse
Pueblo Springs Rehabilitation Center0.8 miTucson, AZ★★☆☆☆3/5
The Center at Tucson0.9 miTucson, AZ★★★★★5/5
Sandstone Estates Rehab Centre1.2 miTucson, AZ★☆☆☆☆1/5
Devon Gables Rehabilitation Center1.2 miTucson, AZ★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
Villa Maria Post Acute and Rehabilitation1.2 miTucson, AZ★★★☆☆2/5
Haven of Tucson1.8 miTucson, AZ★★☆☆☆2/5
Haven of Saguaro Valley2.4 miTucson, AZ★★★★★4/5
Catalina Post Acute and Rehabilitation4.1 miTucson, AZ★★★★☆3/5
Park Avenue Health and Rehabilitation Center4.7 miTucson, AZ★★★★☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Pima, AZ — 24 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

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

All facilities in Tucson →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 035064.

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details