MissouriKansas City

New Mark Rehab and Healthcare Center

11221 North Nashua Drive, Kansas City, MO 64155 · Clay County · 199 certified beds · avg 157 residents/day · certified since Jan 8, 1987

Part of chain: AMA HOLDINGS (13 facilities, chain avg rating 1.6★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
4
Serious findings on record
$12,279
Fines, last 3 years
3.18
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5

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 self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Sep 26, 2025 · F-0658 · triggered by a complaint

The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.

Why it matters: Care that falls below professional standards can directly harm a resident's health and recovery.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Sep 27, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Sep 26, 2025 · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Sep 7, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Mar 26, 2025 · 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 (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Mar 27, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Feb 13, 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Mar 25, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (44)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jan 26, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint
Jan 26, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint
Jan 6, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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
Dec 31, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
Dec 31, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Nov 21, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · from a complaint
Nov 21, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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. · from a complaint
Nov 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint
Sep 26, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe 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
Sep 26, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Jun 19, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jun 19, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jun 19, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Jun 19, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from.
May 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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). · from a complaint
Mar 26, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe 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
Apr 11, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Apr 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand.
Apr 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Apr 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Apr 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
Apr 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Apr 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Apr 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Apr 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline.
Apr 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Apr 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits.
Apr 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Apr 11, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices.
Feb 13, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Sep 29, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Sep 29, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Sep 29, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not properly hold, secure, and manage residents' personal money that was deposited with it for safekeeping. Facilities holding residents' funds must keep careful, honest accounts.
Sep 29, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Sep 29, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Sep 29, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Sep 29, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Sep 29, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Sep 29, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not regularly inspect bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for safety, or the rails and mattresses were not attached safely to the frames.
Sep 29, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Sep 29, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 29, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 29, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems.
Sep 29, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (13 → 4).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2022140E
2024141G ▲
2025133G ▲
202630F

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)

2 fines totaling $12,279.

DateTypeAmount / length
Sep 26, 2025Fine$4,261
Feb 13, 2024Fine$8,018

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityMissouri avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.183.663.95bottom 30% in Missouri; bottom 21% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.340.490.69bottom 35% in Missouri; bottom 14% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing2.883.223.50bottom 38% in Missouri; bottom 25% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.280.330.48top 47% in Missouri; bottom 28% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)70.656.045.8bottom 15% in Missouri; bottom 5% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)85.747.842.9bottom 6% in Missouri; bottom 3% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, 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 3.51, RN 0.37, weekend 3.19. Staffing rating: 1/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Ama Holdings LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest09/01/2024
Asj New Mark LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest09/01/2024
Def Holdings LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest09/01/2024
Marx, AbigailIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest09/01/2024
Marx, AsherIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest09/01/2024
New Mark Holdings LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%09/01/2024
New Mark Partners LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest09/01/2024
Reiss, DoviIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest09/01/2024
Wolf, EstherIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest09/01/2024
Wolf, JacquesIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest09/01/2024
Ydsr LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest09/01/2024
Bestgen, DevanIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/20/2025
Locust Point Private Credit Fund III LPOrganization5% or Greater Mortgage InterestNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2024
LTC Consulting Services LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2024
M13 Family TrustOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2024
Marx, AsherIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2024
Mo New Mark Property LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2024
New Mark Property Holdings LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2024
New Mark Property LLCOrganization5% or Greater Mortgage InterestNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2024
New Mark Property LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2024

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Tiffany Springs Rehabilitation & Health Care Cente4.6 miKansas City, MO★★★☆☆2/5
Linden Woods Village5.3 miGladstone, MO★★★★☆3/5
Pleasant Valley Manor Care Center7.7 miLiberty, MO★★★★☆4/5
Ignite Medical Resort Kansas City, LLC7.8 miKansas City, MO★★★☆☆3/5
Avalon View Health and Wellness8.2 miLiberty, MO★★★☆☆3/5
Norterre8.5 miLiberty, MO★★★☆☆3/5
Pinnacle Point Wellness & Rehabilitation8.7 miRiverside, MO★★★☆☆3/5
McCrite Plaza at Briarcliff Skilled Facility9.2 miKansas City, MO★★☆☆☆2/5
Northland Rehabilitation & Health Care Center9.7 miKansas City, MO★★★☆☆3/5
Aspire Senior Living Platte City12.2 miPlatte City, MO★☆☆☆☆2/5
Life Care Center of Kansas City12.9 miKansas City, KS★★★☆☆2/5
Parkview Healthcare13.1 miKansas City, MO★☆☆☆☆1/5abuseSFF

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Kansas City →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265308.