How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Sarcoxie Health Care Center
1505 Miner, Sarcoxie, MO 64862 (opens Google Maps) · Jasper County · (417) 548-3434· 40 certified beds · avg 37 residents/day · certified since Jun 1, 1996 · 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: RELIANT CARE MANAGEMENT (34 facilities, chain avg rating 1.2★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Mar 28, 2025
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Mar 28, 2025
$0
Fines, last 3 years
1.19
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: 1/5 · 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)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 28, 2025 · F-0692
The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 28, 2025 · F-0692
The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Why it matters: Malnutrition and dehydration can quickly weaken a resident and lead to serious complications.
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: May 9, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 28, 2025 · F-0697
The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 28, 2025 · 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: May 9, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 24 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · from a complaint F-0919
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
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. · from a complaint F-0725
View all 24 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 14, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · from a complaint · F-0919 |
| Nov 14, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Nov 14, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0725 |
| Nov 14, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Aug 27, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing. · from a complaint · F-0727 |
| Aug 27, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0609 |
| Mar 28, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Mar 28, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| Mar 28, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility's quality committee — the internal group responsible for finding and fixing care problems — did not have the required members or did not meet at least every three months. · F-0868 |
| Mar 28, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety. · F-0740 |
| Aug 27, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' right to manage their own money and financial affairs. · from a complaint · F-0567 |
| Aug 24, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · F-0925 |
| Aug 24, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. · F-0881 |
| Aug 24, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0758 |
| Aug 24, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Aug 9, 2023 | 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 |
| Aug 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0609 |
| Aug 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0610 |
| Mar 13, 2020 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Mar 13, 2020 | 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 |
| Mar 13, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 13, 2020 | 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. · F-0625 |
| Mar 13, 2020 | 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. · F-0689 |
| Mar 13, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (4 → 4).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2020
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 2
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 6 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 7 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 1 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 10 | 2 | 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.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityMissouri averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 1.19
Missouri average: 3.66
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.37
Missouri average: 0.49
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 0.88
Missouri average: 3.22
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Missouri avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 1.19 | 3.66 | 3.95 | bottom 1% in Missouri; bottom 1% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.37 | 0.49 | 0.69 | bottom 41% in Missouri; bottom 18% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 0.88 | 3.22 | 3.50 | bottom 1% in Missouri; bottom 1% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.39 | 0.33 | 0.48 | top 21% in Missouri; top 49% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 84.0 | 56.0 | 45.8 | bottom 2% in Missouri; bottom 2% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | — | 47.8 | 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 1.49, RN 0.47, weekend 1.11.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (1.49 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 1/5.
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: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Sarcoxie Health Care Center. 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 - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Destefane, Richard | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/25/2025 |
| RCG INC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/25/2025 |
| Reliant Care Group LLC | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/25/2025 |
| Richard J. Destefane Revocable Living Trust | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/25/2025 |
| Arshad, Abdullah | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/25/2025 |
| Arshad, Abdullah | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/25/2025 |
| Destefane, Richard | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/25/2025 |
| Destefane, Richard | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/25/2025 |
| Greathouse, Johnna | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/25/2025 |
| Greathouse, Johnna | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/25/2025 |
| Reliant Care Management Company LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/25/2025 |
| Reliant Care Management Company LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/03/2025 |
| Richard J. Destefane Revocable Living Trust | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/25/2025 |
| Sarcoxie Associates LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/25/2025 |
| TLG II LLP | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/25/2025 |
All 15 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 Reliant Care Management — 34 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.
- South County Health Care Center — Arnold, MO · overall 1/5abuse
- St Elizabeth Care Center — Saint Elizabeth, MO · overall 2/5
- Stonecrest Healthcare — Viburnum, MO · overall 2/5
- Wellsville Health Care Center — Wellsville, MO · overall 1/5
- Westview Nursing Home — Center, MO · overall 1/5
- Holton Health Care Center — Holton, KS · overall 1/5SFF
- Bernard Care Center — Saint Louis, MO · overall 1/5
- Bridgewood Health Care Center — Kansas City, MO · overall 1/5abuseSFF
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 33 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
- "How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
- "Can you show me the call buttons in the bathrooms and bathing areas, and tell me your average response time when one is pressed?"
- "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
- "What is your nurse and aide staffing ratio on each shift, including nights and weekends?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "How many hours a day is a registered nurse physically in the building, including weekends?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Missouri midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 84% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 15 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aspire Senior Living Carthage | 10.9 mi | Carthage, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| St Luke's Nursing and Rehabilitation | 11.0 mi | Carthage, MO | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Granby House | 12.7 mi | Granby, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Lacoba Homes INC | 14.6 mi | Monett, MO | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Lawrence County Manor | 16.6 mi | Mount Vernon, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Mt Vernon Nursing | 16.8 mi | Mount Vernon, MO | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Aspire Senior Living Webb City | 19.7 mi | Webb City, MO | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| NHC Healthcare, Joplin | 19.8 mi | Joplin, MO | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Jasper, MO — 7 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Westgate — Joplin, MO · overall 2/5
- Communities of Wildwood Ranch — Joplin, MO · overall 4/5
- Joplin Gardens — Joplin, MO · overall 1/5
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 265649.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).