770 Converse Street, Longmeadow, MA 01106 (opens Google Maps) · Hampden County · (413) 567-6211· 200 certified beds · avg 183 residents/day · certified since Jan 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: CHELSEA JEWISH LIFECARE (5 facilities, chain avg rating 4.8★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 21, 2024 · F-0656 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: Without a complete, working care plan, important needs can slip through the cracks and no one is accountable for results.
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: Jun 10, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 21, 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: Jun 10, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 21 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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. F-0550
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
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 7, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 7, 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. · F-0550 |
| May 7, 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 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal 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 |
| May 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · F-0685 |
| May 7, 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. · F-0773 |
| May 7, 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. · F-0842 |
| Jan 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 21, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| May 21, 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 10, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint · F-0583 |
| Feb 21, 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. · F-0842 |
| Feb 21, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Feb 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · F-0558 |
| Feb 21, 2024 | 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 |
| Feb 21, 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. · F-0656 |
| Feb 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · F-0685 |
| Feb 21, 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 |
| Feb 21, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Aug 16, 2022 | 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 |
| Aug 16, 2022 | 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. · F-0842 |
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (8 → 7).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 11 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 8 | 0 | E |
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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $11,468.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 21, 2024 | Fine | $11,468 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Massachusetts avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.70 | 3.89 | 3.95 | bottom 46% in Massachusetts; bottom 47% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.45 | 0.65 | 0.69 | bottom 21% in Massachusetts; bottom 29% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.39 | 3.51 | 3.50 | top 49% in Massachusetts; top 48% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.40 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 49% in Massachusetts; top 48% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 38.7 | 38.2 | 45.8 | bottom 46% in Massachusetts; top 33% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 35.3 | 42.6 | 42.9 | top 37% in Massachusetts; top 39% 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 3.94, RN 0.47, weekend 3.61.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.94 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 4/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Julian J Levitt Family Nursing Home. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 →
Non profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chelsea Jewish Lifecare INC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 100% | 03/09/2019 |
| JGS Lifecare Corporation | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 06/15/1994 |
| Albert, Jane | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2023 |
| Albert, Jane | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2023 |
| Albert, Jane | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2023 |
| Anfang, Stuart | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/1999 |
| Anfang, Stuart | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Anfang, Stuart | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/1999 |
| Berman, Adam | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2018 |
| Berman, Adam | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2018 |
| Berman, Adam | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2018 |
| Berman, Adam | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2018 |
| Berman, Barry | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/18/2018 |
| Berman, Barry | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2018 |
| Brudnick, Jeffrey | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/14/2018 |
| Carmel, Lauren | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/22/2019 |
| Carmel, Lauren | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/22/2019 |
| Carr, Christopher | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2018 |
| Carr, Christopher | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2018 |
| Casartello, Carol | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2020 |
Showing 20 of 85 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 65 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Chelsea Jewish Lifecare — 5 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.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| East Longmeadow Skilled Nursing Center | 1.0 mi | East Longmeadow, MA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Care One at Redstone | 1.4 mi | East Longmeadow, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Chestnut Hill Health and Rehabilitation Center LLC | 2.6 mi | East Longmeadow, MA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Sixteen Acres Health and Rehabilitation Center LLC | 3.1 mi | Springfield, MA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Agawam East Rehab and Nursing | 3.4 mi | Agawam, MA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Agawam North Rehab and Nursing | 3.6 mi | Agawam, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Loomis Lakeside at Reeds Landing | 3.6 mi | Springfield, MA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Agawam South Rehab and Nursing | 3.7 mi | Agawam, MA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Agawam West Rehab and Nursing | 3.7 mi | Agawam, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Parkway Pavilion Health and Rehabilitation Center | 5.7 mi | Enfield, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Vantage at Hampden LLC | 5.9 mi | Hampden, MA | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Suffield House Rehabilitation and Healthcare Cente | 6.2 mi | Suffield, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Hampden, MA — 26 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.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 225040.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details