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 →
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jul 30, 2024
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Oct 10, 2024
$160,046
Fines, last 3 years
4.77
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 most recent standard health inspection was more than 2 years ago — conditions may have changed.
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)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, pattern · Oct 10, 2024 · 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 (K): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was a pattern: more than a limited occurrence, without being widespread. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Nov 22, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
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: Aug 31, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 16 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
K · Immediate jeopardy, pattern
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 complaintF-0600
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents. · from a complaintF-0835
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide the right treatment and services for residents with dementia or signs of dementia. Dementia care requires specific approaches, training, and patience. · from a complaintF-0744
View all 16 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
Oct 10, 2024
▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, pattern
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
Oct 10, 2024
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents. · from a complaint · F-0835
Oct 10, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide the right treatment and services for residents with dementia or signs of dementia. Dementia care requires specific approaches, training, and patience. · from a complaint · F-0744
Jul 30, 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
Jul 30, 2024
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804
Jul 30, 2024
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
Jul 30, 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
Jul 30, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide special eating equipment and utensils — like adaptive cups or easy-grip silverware — for residents who need them, along with appropriate help at meals. · F-0810
Jul 6, 2022
▲ 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. · F-0689
Jul 6, 2022
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility was not properly licensed, or did not operate in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and accepted professional standards. · F-0836
Jul 6, 2022
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · F-0609
Jul 6, 2022
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. · F-0610
Jul 6, 2022
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
Jul 6, 2022
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
Dec 6, 2019
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. · F-0577
Dec 6, 2019
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
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (6 → 5).
Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations:
2
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2022
All citations:
6
Serious citations (G–L):
1
2024
All citations:
8
Serious citations (G–L):
1
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Year
Citations
Serious (G–L)
Worst severity that year
2019
2
0
D
2022
6
1
G ▲
2024
8
1
K ▲
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
Oct 10, 2024
Fine
$160,046
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 facilityNew York averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility:
4.77
New York average:
3.58
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
0.92
New York average:
0.68
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
3.98
New York average:
3.13
U.S. average:
3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Measure
This facility
New York avg
U.S. avg
Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
4.77
3.58
3.95
top 8% in New York; top 17% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
0.92
0.68
0.69
top 14% in New York; top 20% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
3.98
3.13
3.50
top 11% in New York; top 23% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.34
0.48
0.48
bottom 47% in New York; bottom 40% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
42.9
40.3
45.8
bottom 41% in New York; top 44% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
59.3
39.8
42.9
bottom 13% in New York; bottom 23% 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 4.41, RN 0.85, weekend 3.69.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.41 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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 Lewis County General Hospital-Nursing Home Unit. 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.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 335428.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
The Care File
Visit checklist — Lewis County General Hospital-Nursing Home Unit
7785 North State Street, Lowville, NY 13367 · (315) 376-5200
Health inspection rating 2/5 · CMS overall 2/5· Fines (3y): $160,046
Most serious findings on record:
▲ Oct 10, 2024 (F-0600, Immediate jeopardy, pattern): 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.
▲ Jul 6, 2022 (F-0689, 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.
Questions for the administrator:
☐ "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
☐ "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
☐ "What were the findings behind this administration citation, and what has leadership changed since?"
☐ "What specific dementia training do your staff receive, and how do you handle difficult moments without medication?"
☐ "Could I join residents for a meal to see the food quality and temperature for myself?"
☐ "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
☐ "If my family member is able to manage their own medications, would you allow it, and how is that decided?"
☐ "What adaptive eating equipment do you provide, and how do you decide who needs help at meals?"
☐ "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 43% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
☐ "The ownership record on file lists 19 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
☐ "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
While you're there, notice:
☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)
Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 335428 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)