How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
New Bethany Skilled Nursing
1441 Berkeley Dr, Los Banos, CA 93635 (opens Google Maps) · Merced County · (209) 827-8949· 35 certified beds · avg 29 residents/day · certified since Jun 15, 2000 · 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 →
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Sep 5, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.85
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 29 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. F-0658
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
View all 29 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 3, 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 |
| Sep 5, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Sep 5, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Sep 5, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Sep 5, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them. · F-0865 |
| Sep 5, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Sep 5, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Sep 5, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Sep 5, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Sep 5, 2025 | 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). · F-0628 |
| Sep 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0657 |
| Sep 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Sep 5, 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 |
| Sep 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · F-0806 |
| Sep 5, 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 |
| Sep 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Oct 7, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · from a complaint · F-0801 |
| Oct 7, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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. · from a complaint · F-0812 |
| Aug 28, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · from a complaint · F-0625 |
| Aug 28, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not let a resident return after a hospital stay or approved leave that lasted longer than the facility's bed-hold policy allowed. Residents generally have the right to come back to the next available bed. · from a complaint · F-0626 |
| Jun 21, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jun 21, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Jun 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 |
| Sep 23, 2022 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Sep 23, 2022 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. · F-0700 |
| Sep 23, 2022 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Sep 23, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · F-0604 |
| Sep 23, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726 |
| Sep 23, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (3 → 15).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 16
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 6 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 7 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 16 | 0 | F |
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)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.85
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.53
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.23
California average: 3.90
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | California avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.85 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 18% in California; top 16% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.53 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 42% in California; bottom 42% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.23 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 23% in California; top 17% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.28 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 29% in California; bottom 28% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 22.2 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 12% in California; top 4% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | — | 38.1 | 42.9 | — |
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 4.45, RN 0.48, weekend 3.88.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.45 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.
Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · 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 New Bethany Skilled Nursing. 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 →
Non profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fonesca, Lucinda | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 02/11/2021 |
| D'cruz, Astrida | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/11/2021 |
| Fonesca, Lucinda | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/11/2021 |
| Fonesca, Lucinda | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/11/2021 |
| Fonseca, Julia | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/11/2021 |
| Moises, Acacia | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/11/2021 |
| Petrovich, Helen | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/11/2021 |
All 7 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Questions to ask on your visit
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?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "How does your quality improvement program work, and can you share a recent example of a problem you found and fixed?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
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 22% 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)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Los Banos Post Acute | 2.0 mi | Los Banos, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 1 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Merced, CA — 10 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Anberry Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Atwater, CA · overall 5/5
- Anberry Post Acute — Merced, CA · overall 3/5
- Franciscan Post-Acute Care Center — Merced, CA · overall 4/5
- Golden Merced Care Center — Merced, CA · overall 3/5
- Grace Home INC. — Livingston, CA · overall 5/5
- La Sierra Care Center — Merced, CA · overall 3/5
- Merced Behavioral Center — Merced, CA · overall 5/5
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 555758.