How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
850 South Highway 80, Benson, AZ 85602 (opens Google Maps) · Cochise County · (520) 586-2372· 60 certified beds · avg 53 residents/day · certified since Nov 20, 1992 · 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 →
Abuse citation flag (CMS)
Part of chain: OPCO SKILLED MANAGEMENT (66 facilities, chain avg rating 2.3★)
The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · 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.
Showing the latest 3 of 13 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
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. · from a complaint F-0550
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 1, 2026 | 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 |
| Dec 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| May 23, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| Mar 8, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · F-0623 |
| Mar 8, 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. · F-0689 |
| Mar 8, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Mar 8, 2024 | 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 |
| Mar 8, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Oct 27, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · F-0582 |
| Oct 27, 2022 | 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 |
| Oct 27, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | When a resident had a planned discharge, the facility did not make sure the necessary information was communicated to the resident and to the doctors or facility taking over their care. · F-0661 |
| Oct 27, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757 |
| Oct 27, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies. · F-0838 |
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 1).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 5 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 6 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 1 | 0 | D |
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 →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Arizona avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.72 | 3.97 | 3.95 | top 49% in Arizona; bottom 48% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.90 | 0.69 | 0.69 | top 18% in Arizona; top 20% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.30 | 3.50 | 3.50 | top 44% in Arizona; bottom 47% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.48 | 0.49 | 0.48 | top 37% in Arizona; top 35% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 29.8 | 45.2 | 45.8 | top 13% in Arizona; top 14% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 16.7 | 43.6 | 42.9 | top 10% in Arizona; top 9% 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 3.63, RN 0.88, weekend 3.22.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.63 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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: 5/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Quiburi Mission Nursing & Rehabilitation. 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 →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amethyst Az Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 31% | 11/18/2024 |
| Az Healthcare LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 11/18/2024 |
| First Sweetzer Holdings LLC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/18/2024 |
| Garetz, David | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/18/2024 |
| Hatteras Investments, LLC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/18/2024 |
| Indigo Az Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 61% | 11/18/2024 |
| Kaplan, Esther | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/18/2024 |
| Kaplan, Mosha | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/18/2024 |
| Sasem Investments LLC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/18/2024 |
| 850 S State Hwy 80az LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2024 |
| Az Realty Holdings LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/06/2025 |
| Continuum Rehab Group LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/18/2024 |
| Garetz, David | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/18/2024 |
| Garetz, David | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/18/2024 |
| Gurwitz, Solomon | Individual | Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/22/2025 |
| Hansen Hunter LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2024 |
| Mindle, Adam | Individual | Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/22/2025 |
| Opco Az Skilled Management LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/18/2024 |
| Opco Ca Skilled Mgmt INC. | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/18/2024 |
| Opco Texas Skilled Mgmt LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/18/2024 |
Showing 20 of 29 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 9 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Opco Skilled Management — 66 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 65 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Life Care Center of Sierra Vista | 27.0 mi | Sierra Vista, AZ | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Haven of Sierra Vista, LLC | 27.3 mi | Sierra Vista, AZ | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Haven of Saguaro Valley | 38.2 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Sandstone Estates Rehab Centre | 39.5 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Devon Gables Rehabilitation Center | 39.6 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Pueblo Springs Rehabilitation Center | 39.7 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Sabino Canyon Rehabilitation & Care Center | 39.8 mi | Tucson, AZ | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Cochise, AZ — 4 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 035214.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details