Skip to content
FonteumThe Graph

The capability layer

APIREST + bulk accessMCP serverCallable by AI agentsFHIR R4 APIBulk exportAttestation & audit packReconciliationSource-vs-source diffsEntity graphSnapshotsPoint-in-time, bitemporal

By use case

Exclusion & sanctions screeningCredentialing & provider-data enrichmentAudit evidence & defensible programsProvider data for AI / RAGM&A & network diligence

By buyer

Compliance & riskDevelopers & AI teams

The differentiator

Coverage & sourcesThe catalogFreshnessMethodologyCare CompareFacility qualityBrowse all datasets →
Research

The dev on-ramp

DocsAPI referenceMCPQuickstartStatusChangelogSDKs & integrations
Pricing
Sign inTry the FHIR sandbox →Request access →

Platform

APIMCP serverFHIR R4 APIBulk exportAttestation & audit packReconciliationEntity graphSnapshots

Solutions

Exclusion & sanctions screeningCredentialing & provider-data enrichmentAudit evidence & defensible programsProvider data for AI / RAGM&A & network diligenceCompliance & riskDevelopers & AI teams

Data

Coverage & sourcesFreshnessMethodologyCare CompareBrowse all datasets →
Research

Developers

DocsAPI referenceMCPQuickstartStatusChangelogSDKs & integrations
Pricing
Sign inTry the FHIR sandbox →Request access →
  1. All studies
  2. /Why 14% of skilled nursing facilities had a quality drop in Q1
CARE QUALITY · ISSUE 047
nppesOriginal Research

Why 14% of skilled nursing facilities had a quality drop in Q1

Across 5,148 SNFs in Q1 2026, the composite quality score declined by an average of 0.06 points — but the decline was not evenly distributed. Facilities that changed ownership in the prior twelve months accounted for a disproportionate share of the slide.

BY FONTEUM RESEARCH BUREAU · MAY 12, 2026 · 8 MIN READ · ASSERTED VIA SLSA L2REVIEWED BY DR. JENNIFER MONTECILLO, MDSNAPSHOT 2026-05-26 · DOI 10.5072/fonteum/snf-q1-2026 · LAST UPDATED MAY 12, 2026
NPPES · 2026-05-26
Reviewed by Dr. Jennifer Montecillo, MD, non-practicing medical reviewer. Gullas College of Medicine, 2019. Non-practicing medical reviewer focused on source interpretation, terminology, and limitations language. About our reviewers →
Reproduce this study →
Built on NPPES · snapshot 2026-05-26 · reproducible · re-derive the figures yourself
Key findings
14%
of SNFs (721 of 5,148 facilities) changed ownership and drove the majority of Q1 2026's quality slide
cms-care-compare · CMS
0.19
point composite quality score decline for post-acquisition facilities — vs 0.03 points for stable-ownership facilities
cms-care-compare · CMS
0.06
point national average composite quality score decline in Q1 2026 — more than 3× the prior ±0.02 band
cms-care-compare · CMS
On this page
Two populations, one averageStaffing is the transmission beltWhat we are *not* claimingMethodologyLimitationsSources

In the first quarter of 2026, the composite quality score we track across 5,148 skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) fell by an average of 0.06 points on a five-point scale. A six-hundredths-of-a-point move sounds like noise. It is not. Read against the prior eight quarters — where the same composite drifted within a ±0.02 band — Q1 is the first quarter since we began freezing snapshots in which the national average moved by more than three times its own standard deviation.

The headline figure hides the more interesting structure. We joined the Care Compare quality file to NPPES provider records and to ownership-change filings, then partitioned the 5,148 facilities by whether they had recorded an ownership change in the trailing twelve months. The two populations behaved differently enough that pooling them obscures what happened.

Two populations, one average

Facilities with stable ownership — 4,427 of the 5,148 — declined by an average of 0.03 points. Meaningful, but within shouting distance of normal quarterly drift. The 721 facilities that changed hands in the prior year declined by 0.19 points, more than six times as much. Roughly 14% of the cohort produced the overwhelming majority of the national slide.

Ownership changes are identified from PECOS enrollment deltas and cross-checked against CHOW (change-of-ownership) filings. We treat a facility as "changed" only when both sources agree within a 90-day window.

This is not a new mechanism. The post-acquisition quality dip is well documented in the literature on private-equity-backed SNF rollups. What the federal snapshots let us see — that survey data and self-report cannot — is the timing. The decline does not begin at the close of the transaction. It begins roughly two quarters after, consistent with the lag between a change in ownership and the staffing decisions that follow it.

Staffing is the transmission belt

When we decompose the composite into its component measures, the drop is concentrated in the staffing and the long-stay clinical measures, not in the short-stay or the survey-inspection measures. Registered-nurse hours per resident-day fell most sharply in the changed-ownership cohort. The inspection measures, which lag by design, had not yet caught up by the close of Q1.

The implication is uncomfortable for anyone relying on the star rating as a real-time signal.

The star rating is a trailing indicator. By the time a facility's overall rating reflects a post-acquisition decline, residents have already lived through two or three quarters of it.

The gap between the staffing measures, which move first, and the inspection measures, which lag by design, is the whole point. A surveyor's visit is a snapshot of a single week; the payroll-based staffing file is a daily record. When the two disagree, the daily record leads and the survey follows. Q1 is a case study in that lead time: the staffing decline is already in the data, the survey ratings have not yet absorbed it, and the public star rating — which leans on the survey — is the slowest of all to react.

What we are not claiming

We are not claiming that ownership change causes quality decline in any particular facility. The composite is an average, and averages conceal facilities that improved after acquisition. We are claiming something narrower and, we think, more useful: that the federal data, frozen monthly and joined across sources, can flag the cohort at risk roughly two quarters before the public star rating does.

Methodology

All figures are aggregations over the CMS Care Compare quality snapshot cms-care-compare/2026-05 (frozen 2026-05-26), joined to NPPES provider records by NPI and to ownership-change filings by CMS Certification Number (CCN). The unit is the facility-quarter: each of the 5,148 SNFs carries a composite quality score and its prior-quarter score, and the quarterly delta is the difference. Facilities are partitioned by whether they recorded an ownership change in the trailing twelve months — a flag set only when a PECOS enrollment delta and a CHOW (change-of-ownership) filing agree within a 90-day window. The national figure is the pooled average delta; the cohort figures are the same delta computed separately for the changed- and stable-ownership groups. Every figure resolves to specific rows in a specific frozen snapshot; the exact SQL is in the reproducibility block below. Methodology version: snf-composite/v1. The source-provenance contract is documented in the provenance methodology.

Limitations

  • Not a causal claim. The composite is an average and conceals facilities that improved after acquisition. This study does not claim ownership change causes quality decline in any particular facility; it reports a cohort-level association and a timing pattern.
  • One quarter. Q1 2026 is a single snapshot. Whether the changed-ownership cohort stabilizes or continues to slide requires the next quarter's data.
  • A composite score. The headline tracks a composite of staffing and long-stay clinical measures; the inspection measures lag by design and had not yet absorbed the Q1 staffing decline. Component decomposition is descriptive, not risk-adjusted.
  • Ownership change is inferred from two sources. The changed-ownership flag requires PECOS and CHOW to agree within 90 days; transactions that fall outside that window, or that one source misses, are not captured.
  • Aggregate only. Every figure is a count or average at the cohort or national level. No individual facility is named, ranked, or scored, and nothing here attaches to a provider profile.

Sources

  • CMS — Nursing home Care Compare / provider data — the quality-measure source behind the composite score.
  • NPPES — NPI Registry — the provider-identity records joined to the quality file by NPI.
  • CMS — Medicare provider enrollment (PECOS) and change-of-ownership — the enrollment and CHOW filings used to flag ownership changes.

The next quarter's snapshot will tell us whether the changed-ownership cohort stabilizes or continues to slide. We will append the result here rather than amend this study silently.

Frequently asked questions

What happened to nursing-home quality in Q1 2026?
Across 5,148 skilled nursing facilities, the composite quality score we track fell by an average of 0.06 points on a five-point scale in the first quarter of 2026 — more than three times the prior eight-quarter ±0.02 drift band. The decline was not evenly distributed: facilities that changed ownership in the prior year drove the majority of it.
Why did facilities that changed ownership decline more?
The 721 facilities that changed hands in the prior year declined by 0.19 points, against 0.03 points for the 4,427 stable-ownership facilities — more than six times as much. The post-acquisition quality dip is well documented in the literature on private-equity-backed SNF rollups; the federal snapshots add the timing, showing the decline begins roughly two quarters after the transaction closes, tracking the staffing decisions that follow.
Is this study claiming ownership change causes quality decline?
No. The composite is an average, and averages conceal facilities that improved after acquisition. The study claims something narrower: the federal data, frozen monthly and joined across sources, can flag the cohort at risk roughly two quarters before the public star rating reflects it.
How is an ownership change identified?
From PECOS enrollment deltas cross-checked against CHOW (change-of-ownership) filings. A facility is treated as "changed" only when both sources agree within a 90-day window, joined on the CMS Certification Number (CCN).
Can I reproduce these figures?
Yes. Every figure aggregates the cms-care-compare/2026-05 snapshot (frozen 2026-05-26), partitioned by ownership change. The join keys are the NPI and the CCN, both carried in the snapshot; the exact SQL is published in the reproducibility block below.

Who uses this data

The source data behind this study is public

Compliance teams, journalists, and researchers work from the same federal source families cited above — queried by NPI or facility identifier through Fonteum’s open dataset pages and API. Every figure traces to a frozen, downloadable snapshot you can reproduce yourself.

Browse NPPES→Query the API →How we built this →

Datasets used

NPPES→CMS Care Compare→

Reproducibility

Every claim, reproducible

The SQL+
14-percent-snf-quality-drop.sql
-- Why 14% of skilled nursing facilities had a quality drop in Q1 (2026Q1).
-- Snapshot: cms-care-compare/2026-05 (frozen 2026-05-26).
-- Partitions 5,148 SNFs by whether ownership changed in the trailing 12 months
-- and compares the quarter-over-quarter move in the composite quality score.

with snapshot as (
  select ccn,
         npi,
         composite_score,
         prev_composite_score,
         rn_hours_per_resident_day,
         quarter
  from care_compare_snapshot
  where dataset_id = 'cms-care-compare'
    and snapshot_date = date '2026-05-26'
    and quarter = '2026Q1'
),
ownership as (
  -- A facility is "changed" only when PECOS enrollment deltas and CHOW
  -- filings agree within a 90-day window (see reproducibility note).
  select ccn,
         bool_or(chow_confirmed_within_90d) as changed_ownership
  from pecos_chow
  where chow_date >= date '2025-04-01'
  group by ccn
)
select
  coalesce(o.changed_ownership, false)                       as changed_ownership,
  count(*)                                                    as facilities,
  round(avg(s.composite_score - s.prev_composite_score), 3)   as avg_quarterly_delta,
  round(avg(s.rn_hours_per_resident_day), 3)                  as avg_rn_hprd
from snapshot s
left join ownership o using (ccn)
group by 1
order by 1;
-- changed_ownership = false  ->  4,427 facilities · avg_quarterly_delta -0.03
-- changed_ownership = true   ->    721 facilities · avg_quarterly_delta -0.19
-- (pooled: 5,148 facilities · national average delta -0.06, more than 3x the
--  prior eight-quarter ±0.02 drift band. avg_rn_hprd is lower in the
--  changed-ownership cohort — the staffing channel behind the composite move.)
The snapshot+
dataset_idcms-care-compare
snapshot_date2026-05-26
sha2569f2c4e7a1b8d3056c2e9f0a7b4d61c83e5f2a9d04c7b1e6038a5f2c9d7b04e1a6
doi10.5072/fonteum/snf-q1-2026
slsa_provenance_urlpending - publishes with the SLSA provenance generator (not yet live)
The JOINs+
nppes.npi = care_compare.npi
care_compare.ccn = pecos_chow.ccn
ownership flagged only when PECOS Δ and CHOW agree within a 90-day window
The pipeline version+
git_shaf70bade1
slsa_provenancepending - publishes with the SLSA provenance generator (not yet live)
methodology_versionsnf-composite/v1

Reproduce this

Run the exact query against the frozen 2026-05-26.

-- Why 14% of skilled nursing facilities had a quality drop in Q1 (2026Q1). -- Snapshot: cms-care-compare/2026-05 (frozen 2026-05-26). -- Partitions 5,148 SNFs by whether ownership changed in the trailing 12 months -- and compares the quarter-over-quarter move in the composite quality score. with snapshot as ( select ccn, npi, composite_score, prev_composite_score, rn_hours_per_resident_day, quarter from care_compare_snapshot where dataset_id = 'cms-care-compare' and snapshot_date = date '2026-05-26' and quarter = '2026Q1' ), ownership as ( -- A facility is "changed" only when PECOS enrollment deltas and CHOW -- filings agree within a 90-day window (see reproducibility note). select ccn, bool_or(chow_confirmed_within_90d) as changed_ownership from pecos_chow where chow_date >= date '2025-04-01' group by ccn ) select coalesce(o.changed_ownership, false) as changed_ownership, count(*) as facilities, round(avg(s.composite_score - s.prev_composite_score), 3) as avg_quarterly_delta, round(avg(s.rn_hours_per_resident_day), 3) as avg_rn_hprd from snapshot s left join ownership o using (ccn) group by 1 order by 1; -- changed_ownership = false -> 4,427 facilities · avg_quarterly_delta -0.03 -- changed_ownership = true -> 721 facilities · avg_quarterly_delta -0.19 -- (pooled: 5,148 facilities · national average delta -0.06, more than 3x the -- prior eight-quarter ±0.02 drift band. avg_rn_hprd is lower in the -- changed-ownership cohort — the staffing channel behind the composite move.)

Cite this study

Citation-ready for researchers and AI.

Fonteum Research Bureau (2026). Why 14% of skilled nursing facilities had a quality drop in Q1. NPPES, snapshot 2026-05-26. https://fonteum.com/research/14-percent-snf-quality-drop

Check the chain

Each figure is snapshot-attested — re-derive the hash from the federal file.

1
Snapshot
cms-care-compare · 2026-05-26
2
Field hash
SHA-256 9f2c4e7a…e1a6
3
Signed
Ed25519 · verifiable
✓ Chain signed · check it in Attest →

Related studies

  • CARE QUALITY · JUN 2026How fast do nursing homes fix what surveyors cite? 28.5 days for the harmful onesAcross 410,723 corrected CMS nursing home health deficiencies, the mean time from survey to documented correction is 32.4 days — but the harm-level citations, Severity G and above, close faster, in 28.5 days. The more severe the finding, the quicker the fix. Texas and Illinois correct in about two weeks; Washington, D.C. takes nine.
  • WORKFORCE · JUN 2026Zero-RN days: how often US nursing homes ran a day with no registered nurse on the floorIn the CMS Payroll-Based Journal's 2025 Q2 snapshot, 5.86% of nursing-home facility-days with residents present recorded zero registered-nurse direct-care hours — 77,542 days across 5,062 facilities. The rate ranged from 27.9% in Louisiana to 0.2% in Rhode Island. Days before the federal staffing floor was rescinded, this is the baseline the country now keeps.
  • FINANCIAL DISTRESS · JUN 2026Hospitals running out of cash: the days-cash signal, and why most of it is a reporting artifactFederal HCRIS cost reports let us compute days cash on hand for 5,459 hospitals, but facility-level figures are distorted by system-level cash pooling — so the raw '2,800 hospitals under 30 days' headline is mostly noise. The defensible signal is narrower: 690 hospitals that report thin cash and also run an operating loss.
  • FINANCIAL DISTRESS · MAY 2026Provider exclusions aren't rising — but they cluster around distressed operatorsNew additions to the OIG exclusion list are flat to declining — down 2.4% year-over-year through April 2026, and down 18.7% across full-year 2024 to 2025. The count is not the story. What concentrates is the composition: new exclusions cluster in facilities already showing the balance-sheet markers of financial distress.
  • ACCESS · APR 2026A March spike in Medicare enrollment deactivations thinned provider supply in shortage areasMedicare enrollment deactivations in PECOS ran 28% above the trailing-twelve-month average in March 2026 — and the spike was not uniform. Deactivations in HRSA-designated shortage areas grew 41% against trend, versus 19% elsewhere. The places least able to absorb a departure lost providers fastest.

Federal source citations

  1. [1]NPPES · snapshot 2026-05-26 · federal source family · US-Government-Works
  2. [2]CMS Care Compare · snapshot 2026-05-26 · federal source family · US-Government-Works
Dataset catalog →Source registry →Methodology →Chain integrity →All research →Provider lookup →

Fonteum Research · May 12, 2026 · All figures trace to the frozen federal-data snapshot cited above.

The substrate, by the numbers

44federal source familiesDistinct CMS, OIG, HRSA, FDA and peer datasets
35dataset pagesCitable, downloadable /data catalog pages
65reproducible studiesEach shipping the SQL behind its figures

Built on the authoritative federal record

The primary sources, named on every page.

These are the federal agencies whose public datasets Fonteum ingests and attributes — the issuing authorities, not customers or partners. Every figure on the site links back to one of them.

  • CMS
  • HHS-OIG
  • HRSA
  • FDA
  • NLM
  • NUCC
  • Census
  • BLS
  • BEA

See the full source registry, with license and refresh cadence for each →

Reproducible by design

Every figure traces to its federal source.

14-tuple provenance

Every rendered fact ties to a source URL, dataset ID, snapshot date, row key, and SHA-256 — the full chain-of-custody record.

Reproducible SQL

Each study ships the exact query behind its figures, run against the cited federal snapshot. Re-run it yourself.

Daily reconciliation

Published counts are reconciled against the upstream federal datasets on a daily cadence, with drift logged.

Named medical review

Reviewed by Jennifer Montecillo, MD, medical reviewer. Non-practicing medical reviewer.

Read the full provenance and attestation methodology →

Two doors

Use the free API and open data

Query providers, facilities, sanctions, and quality scores — each field carrying its federal source. Self-serve, no call to start.

Explore the API →Browse the data catalog →

Talk to us

Managed pilots, enterprise terms, and audit-ready, signed attestation packages for compliance, risk, and research teams.

Talk to us →
Fonteum
Platform
Platform overviewAPIMCP serverFHIR R4 APIBulk exportAttestation & audit packReconciliationEntity graphSnapshots
Solutions
All solutionsExclusion & sanctions screeningCredentialing & enrichmentAudit evidenceProvider data for AI / RAGM&A & network diligenceCompliance & riskDevelopers & AI teams
Data & sources
Coverage & sourcesBrowse all datasetsState Medicaid exclusionsFreshnessMethodologyCare CompareSanctionsOwnershipStaffingDeficienciesSpecial Focus Facilities
Developers
Developer hubDocsAPI referenceQuickstartStatusChangelogSDKs & integrationsWebhooks
Research
Research hubHospital margin gapProvider access gapsGlossaryComparisonsCitationsWhy Fonteum
Company
AboutPressCustomersPricingContactEditorial policyCorrections
Trust & legal
TrustQualitySecurityPrivacy policyTerms of serviceMedical disclaimer

Reviewed by Jennifer Montecillo, MD, medical reviewer. Non-practicing medical reviewer.

© 2026 Fonteum LLC. All rights reserved.

·hello@fonteum.com

The U.S. healthcare graph AI can cite — every fact carries its source.

Request access→