Florida ›Saint Augustine

Lilac at Bayview, the

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

161a Marine Street, Saint Augustine, FL 32084 (opens Google Maps) · St. Johns County · (904) 829-3475· 120 certified beds · avg 106 residents/day · certified since Jul 1, 1993 · 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: SIMCHA HYMAN & NAFTALI ZANZIPER (79 facilities, chain avg rating 2.6★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Apr 10, 2025
5
Serious findings on record
most recent May 17, 2024
$125,355
Fines, last 3 years
3.93
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: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · 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)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Sep 21, 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 (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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: Oct 6, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Sep 21, 2023 · F-0607 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: Without working prevention policies, mistreatment is more likely to happen and less likely to be caught.

Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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: Oct 6, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Sep 21, 2023 · F-0867 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them.

Why it matters: Without a working quality program, the same care problems tend to repeat instead of getting fixed.

Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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: Oct 6, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 17, 2024 · F-0624 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not properly prepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge. Before a resident leaves, the facility must get them ready and make sure the move is safe and orderly.

Why it matters: An unprepared discharge can send a resident somewhere unsafe or without the care arrangements they need.

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 17, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 17, 2024 · F-0660 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving.

Why it matters: Poor discharge planning can send a resident home or elsewhere without the support, equipment, or follow-up care they need.

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 17, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. F-0692

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
Apr 10, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 10, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Apr 10, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692
Apr 10, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759
Apr 10, 2025D · 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
Apr 10, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 4, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 4, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · from a complaint · F-0867
May 17, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not properly prepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge. Before a resident leaves, the facility must get them ready and make sure the move is safe and orderly. · from a complaint · F-0624
May 17, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving. · from a complaint · F-0660
Sep 21, 2023▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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
Sep 21, 2023▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedThe 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
Sep 21, 2023▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · from a complaint · F-0867
May 18, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
May 18, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802
May 18, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 18, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
May 18, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695
May 18, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759
May 18, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 16, 2021F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908
Sep 16, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · F-0585

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (7 → 6).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 3
2024
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2025
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0

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

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202120F
2023103J ▲
202442G ▲
202560D

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 →

3 fines totaling $125,355.

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.

DateTypeAmount / length
May 17, 2024Fine$8,400
May 17, 2024Fine$8,401
Sep 21, 2023Fine$108,554

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 facilityFlorida averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.93
Florida average: 4.03
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.40
Florida average: 0.76
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.61
Florida average: 3.68
U.S. average: 3.50

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

MeasureThis facilityFlorida avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.934.033.95top 45% in Florida; top 43% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.400.760.69bottom 8% in Florida; bottom 22% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.613.683.50top 43% in Florida; top 37% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.180.530.48bottom 4% in Florida; bottom 9% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)65.441.445.8bottom 4% in Florida; bottom 9% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)71.446.042.9bottom 11% in Florida; bottom 11% 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 3.53, RN 0.36, weekend 3.24.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.53 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.

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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Lilac at Bayview, the. 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
Lilac SNF Holdco LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest100%01/13/2022
St. Augustine FL Holdco LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%01/13/2022
Gorelick, BatyaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/13/2022
Lake, LarryIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE01/13/2022
Lilac Health Group LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/13/2022
Terentev, AlexIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2021

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 Simcha Hyman & Naftali Zanziper — 79 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 78 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.

  • "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
  • "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
  • "How does your quality committee work, and can you give an example of a problem it recently identified and fixed?"
  • "What does your discharge planning process look like, and how are families involved before a move?"
  • "How do you prepare residents and families for discharge, and what support do you arrange for after they leave?"
  • "How do you identify and arrange specialized services for residents with mental health conditions or disabilities?"
  • "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
  • "How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"

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 65% 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 (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
St Augustine Health and Rehabilitation Center1.6 miSaint Augustine, FL★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Ponce Therapy Care Center and Rehab, the1.7 miSaint Augustine, FL★★★★★5/5
Moultrie Creek Nursing and Rehab Center5.0 miSaint Augustine, FL★★★★★5/5
Clyde E Lassen State Veterans Nursing Home11.0 miSaint Augustine, FL★★★★☆5/5
Westminster St Augustine12.6 miSaint Augustine, FL★★★★★5/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in St. Johns, FL — 8 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 Saint Augustine →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 105816.

This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).

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