Minnesota ›Rush City

The Estates at Rush City LLC

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

650 Bremer Avenue South, Rush City, MN 55069 (opens Google Maps) · Chisago County · (320) 358-4765· 41 certified beds · avg 29 residents/day · certified since Jul 1, 1986 · 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: MONARCH HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT (45 facilities, chain avg rating 2.2★)

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jan 29, 2026
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Sep 6, 2024
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.25
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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: ★★★☆☆3/5 · 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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 6, 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): 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: Oct 1, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 21 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. 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

  2. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    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

  3. 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

View all 21 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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jan 29, 2026F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Jan 29, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641
Jan 29, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jan 29, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. · F-0605
Jan 29, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jan 29, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 29, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Dec 5, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint · F-0726
Dec 5, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Dec 5, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Dec 5, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 5, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759
Sep 6, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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 6, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0686
Sep 6, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · from a complaint · F-0692
Jul 25, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Oct 26, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not give residents reasonable access to and privacy in using ways to communicate, such as phones, mail, and email. Residents have the right to stay in touch with the outside world privately. · F-0576
Oct 26, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 26, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 26, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Oct 26, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0695

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 7).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2026
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202350E
202491G ▲
202670F

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

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

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityMinnesota averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.25
Minnesota average: 4.83
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.54
Minnesota average: 1.22
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.81
Minnesota average: 4.27
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityMinnesota avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.254.833.95bottom 27% in Minnesota; top 31% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.541.220.69top 19% in Minnesota; top 4% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.814.273.50bottom 30% in Minnesota; top 29% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.870.690.48top 22% in Minnesota; top 9% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)72.042.245.8bottom 6% in Minnesota; bottom 5% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)75.038.642.9bottom 7% in Minnesota; bottom 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 3.78, RN 1.38, weekend 3.39.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.78 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: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for The Estates at Rush City LLC. 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 - Partnership

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Arem, JeffreyIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest7%03/01/2017
Halpert, MarcIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest30%03/01/2017
Jaffa, NoamIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest7%03/01/2017
Legum, JoshuaIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest30%03/01/2017
Nij LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest7%03/01/2017
Spartan Healthcare LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest30%03/01/2017
Stern, WilliamIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest20%03/01/2017
Yazoma Holdings, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest30%03/01/2017
Halpert, MarcIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2017
Legum, JoshuaIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2017
Monarch Healthcare Operating IV LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2017
Stern, WilliamIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2017
Stern, WilliamIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2017

All 13 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 Monarch Healthcare Management — 45 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 44 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

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?"
  • "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
  • "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
  • "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
  • "What percentage of your residents are on antipsychotic or sedating medications, and how do you work to reduce that?"
  • "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
  • "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
  • "How do you verify that your nurses and aides have the skills to care for residents with needs like my family member's?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Minnesota 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 72% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 13 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)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Ecumen North Branch12.4 miNorth Branch, MN★★★☆☆3/5
Burnett Medical Center14.7 miGrantsburg, WI★★★☆☆3/5
Gracepointe Crossing Gables15.6 miCambridge, MN★★★★★3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Chisago, MN — 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.

All facilities in Rush City →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 245348.

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details