19 Poplar Street, New Milford, CT 06776 (opens Google Maps) · Nw Hills County · (860) 354-9365· 95 certified beds · avg 86 residents/day · certified since Sep 2, 1971 · 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: NATIONAL HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES (42 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)
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 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 6, 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): 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: Jul 16, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 19, 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 23, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 26 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
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
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 6, 2025 | ▲ 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| May 6, 2025 | 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. · F-0812 |
| May 6, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| May 6, 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. · F-0880 |
| May 6, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have doctor's orders in place for a resident's immediate care at the time the resident was admitted. · F-0635 |
| May 6, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| May 6, 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. · F-0684 |
| May 6, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694 |
| May 6, 2025 | 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 |
| May 6, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status. · F-0887 |
| May 6, 2025 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| May 6, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. · F-0577 |
| May 6, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Sep 19, 2024 | ▲ 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Sep 19, 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 |
| Sep 19, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Sep 19, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0657 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | 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 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal 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 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · F-0693 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | 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 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0919 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0568 |
| Jun 23, 2021 | 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 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (8 → 13).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 1 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 8 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 4 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 13 | 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 →
2 fines totaling $24,418.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2025 | Fine | $16,400 |
| Sep 19, 2024 | Fine | $8,018 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Connecticut avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.32 | 3.80 | 3.95 | bottom 22% in Connecticut; bottom 27% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.44 | 0.70 | 0.69 | bottom 20% in Connecticut; bottom 29% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.13 | 3.43 | 3.50 | bottom 34% in Connecticut; bottom 38% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.28 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 27% in Connecticut; bottom 28% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 40.0 | 37.4 | 45.8 | bottom 37% in Connecticut; top 36% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 33.3 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 36% in Connecticut; top 33% 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 3.62, RN 0.48, weekend 3.42.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.62 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: 4/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Village Crest Center for Health & Rehabilitation. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Regional context: $525.78/day — Connecticut statewide average for a semi-private nursing-facility room, September 30, 2025. This is a historical regional figure, not this facility's price or a prediction. View the OPM source.
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 - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BNB Health Care Funds LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 7% | 12/31/2012 |
| Cohen, David | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 7% | 06/04/2007 |
| Edsr Associates, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 31% | 12/01/2020 |
| Fuchs, Morris | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 8% | 06/04/2007 |
| Goldenberg, Chaim | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 5% | 06/04/2007 |
| Lipman, Michael | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 5% | 06/04/2007 |
| Manela, Magda | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 5% | 06/04/2007 |
| Roberts, Tzivy | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 7% | 03/01/2014 |
| Bokow, Barry | Individual | General Partnership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2007 |
| David, Albert | Individual | General Partnership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/04/2007 |
| Eisen, Mordechai | Individual | General Partnership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/04/2007 |
| Estate of Tali Skoczylas | Organization | General Partnership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/22/2020 |
| Flaherty, Timothy | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/31/2021 |
| Geffner, Ira | Individual | General Partnership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/04/2007 |
| Laufer, Schmuel | Individual | General Partnership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/04/2007 |
| Neuman, Gerald | Individual | General Partnership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/04/2007 |
| Ostreicher, Marvin | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2007 |
| Pollack, Nathan | Individual | General Partnership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/04/2007 |
| Senga Trust | Organization | General Partnership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/10/2021 |
| Shaya-Mograby, Moshe | Individual | General Partnership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/04/2007 |
Showing 20 of 21 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 1 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
CMS lists this facility under the chain National Health Care Associates — 42 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 41 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candlewood Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 1.0 mi | New Milford, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Grand Rehabilitation and Nursing at Pawling | 9.3 mi | Pawling, NY | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Bethel Health Care Center | 11.0 mi | Bethel, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Pomperaug Woods Health Center | 11.6 mi | Southbury, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Lutheran Home of Southbury INC | 11.6 mi | Southbury, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Glen Hill | 11.9 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| River Glen Health Care Center | 12.2 mi | Southbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Civita Care Center at Danbury | 12.6 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Putnam Ridge | 13.1 mi | Brewster, NY | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Havencare at Filosa | 13.4 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Havencare at Hancock Hall | 13.4 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Saint John Paul II Center | 14.0 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Nw Hills, CT — 9 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 075208.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details