544 East 1200 South, Heber City, UT 84032 (opens Google Maps) · Wasatch County · (435) 654-5500· 92 certified beds · avg 65 residents/day · certified since Jan 8, 1998 · 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: ROCKY MOUNTAIN CARE (10 facilities, chain avg rating 3.0★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · how star ratings work →
⚠ 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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Mar 29, 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 (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: May 8, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 4, 2026 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.
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 10, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 13, 2022 · F-0697
The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Why it matters: Untreated pain causes needless suffering and can lead to depression, poor sleep, and declining health.
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: Mar 4, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 15, 2019 · F-0686
The 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.
Why it matters: Bedsores are painful, can become deeply infected, and in serious cases can be life-threatening.
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: Nov 8, 2019 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 15, 2019 · F-0689
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: Nov 8, 2019 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 30 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint F-0684
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint F-0684
The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint F-0760
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2026 | ▲ G · Actual 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Mar 13, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Mar 13, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint · F-0760 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0607 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not train its staff on dementia care and on recognizing and reporting abuse, neglect, and exploitation. · from a complaint · F-0943 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0585 |
| Mar 29, 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 |
| Jan 13, 2022 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| Jan 13, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · F-0756 |
| Jan 13, 2022 | 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 |
| Jan 13, 2022 | 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 |
| Jan 13, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care. · F-0791 |
| Oct 15, 2019 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0686 |
| Oct 15, 2019 | ▲ 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 |
| Oct 15, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| Oct 15, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Oct 15, 2019 | 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 |
| Oct 15, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. · F-0676 |
| Oct 15, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · F-0725 |
| Oct 15, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 15, 2019 | 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 |
| Oct 15, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide residents with enough to drink, or with drinks matching their needs and preferences, to keep them properly hydrated. · F-0807 |
| Oct 15, 2019 | 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 |
| Oct 15, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Oct 15, 2019 | 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 |
| Oct 15, 2019 | 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 15, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0805 |
| Oct 15, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 2).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 16 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2022 | 5 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 6 | 1 | J ▲ |
| 2025 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 1 | 1 | G ▲ |
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 →
1 fine totaling $32,029, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 29, 2024 | Fine | $32,029 |
| Mar 29, 2024 | Payment Denial | 22 days from May 9, 2024 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Utah avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.52 | 3.87 | 3.95 | bottom 44% in Utah; bottom 38% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.27 | 1.17 | 0.69 | top 27% in Utah; top 8% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.15 | 3.39 | 3.50 | top 44% in Utah; bottom 39% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.99 | 0.88 | 0.48 | top 27% in Utah; top 6% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 69.9 | 50.7 | 45.8 | bottom 11% in Utah; bottom 6% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 63.3 | 40.6 | 42.9 | bottom 11% in Utah; bottom 17% 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 1.31, weekend 3.25.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: 3/5.
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 Rocky Mountain Care - the Lodge. 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 →
Non profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beaver City Corporation | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 04/12/2013 |
| Bangerte, Nathan | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2025 |
| Bangerter, Edward | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2025 |
| Bangerter, Edward | Individual | Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/12/2025 |
| Bangerter, Johnathan | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2025 |
| Barney, Janett | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
| Beeman, Raymond | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/22/2022 |
| Boardman, Laura | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/22/2022 |
| Brown, Gary | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2011 |
| Darby, Megan | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2025 |
| Gatherum, Jason | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2025 |
| Hale, Fredrick | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/22/2022 |
| Hansen, Kent | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2025 |
| Langford, Scott | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2018 |
| Mikesell, Bradley | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/22/2022 |
| Moss, Tyler | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2018 |
| Neves, Courtney | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2025 |
| Novak, Kirsten | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2025 |
| Novak, Kirsten | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2025 |
| Oakden, Richard | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2010 |
Showing 20 of 33 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 13 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Rocky Mountain Care — 10 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 9 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cascades at Orchard Park | 19.8 mi | Orem, UT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 465147.
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