Majestic Care

PBJ Takeaway: Majestic Care

34 Facilities3 States88% For-ProfitAvg. Overall Rating: 2.5Avg. Staffing Rating: 1.5Staffing Rating: 1.5

Majestic Care operates 34 nursing homes across 3 states, with 88% classified as for-profit. Its average CMS overall rating is 2.5 stars.

Across the portfolio, facilities report an average of 3.40 total nurse HPRD, including 0.50 RN hours, below the national ratio of 3.77 HPRD.

24% of Majestic Care facilities meet PBJ320 high-risk criteria (e.g. special focus facility, one-star overall, abuse icon). CMS reports a total of 23 fines ($1.1 million) for the chain's nursing homes.

320 Consulting

Majestic Care Key Metrics

Providers

States

Avg. Rating

2.5

Total Fines

$1.1 million

– Majestic Care

Special Focus Facilities (SFFs)

SFF Candidates

1-Star Overall

Cited for Abuse

Avg. CMS 5-Star Rating – Majestic Care

Overall

2.5

Health Inspection

2.1

Staffing

1.5

Quality Measures

4.6

Majestic Care Facilities

Nursing homes affiliated with this entity. Latest quarter staffing from CMS PBJ data. Click column headers to sort.

State	Provider	City	Total HPRD	RN HPRD	Overall Rating	Staffing Rating
IN	Majestic Care of Bloomington	Bloomington	3.43	0.49	3	2
OH	Majestic Care of New Lexington	New Lexington	3.16	0.56	4	3
IN	Majestic Care of Goshen ⚠	Goshen	3.28	0.66	1	1
MI	Majestic Care of Battle Creek	Battle Creek	3.26	0.71	2	3
MI	Majestic Care of Livonia ⚠	Livonia	3.32	0.24	2	2
MI	Majestic Care of Flushing	Flushing	3.31	0.31	2	1
OH	Majestic Care of Middletown Llc	Middletown	3.58	0.29	2	1
OH	Majestic Care of Fairfield Llc	Fairfield	3.19	0.44	2	2
OH	Majestic Care of Perrysburg	Perrysburg	3.30	0.27	2	1
IN	Majestic Care of Bedford	Bedford	3.38	0.48	4	2
OH	Majestic Care of Clyde	Clyde	3.31	0.69	3	2
OH	Majestic Care of Columbus Llc	Columbus	3.78	0.86	5	3
OH	Majestic Care of Kent	Kent	3.45	0.84	2	3
OH	Majestic Care of Point Place	Toledo	3.61	0.74	4	2
OH	Majestic Care of Cedar Village.	Mason	3.42	0.43	3	2
OH	Majestic Care of Toledo Snf	Toledo	3.36	0.33	4	1
IN	Majestic Care of Newburgh ⚠	Newburgh	3.33	0.39	1	1
IN	Majestic Care of North Vernon	North Vernon	3.03	0.39	2	1
IN	Majestic Care of Carmel	Carmel	3.63	0.63	3	2
IN	Majestic Care of Mccordsville	Mccordsville	3.56	0.22	4	1
IN	Majestic Care of Connersville ⚠	Connersville	—	—	2	1
IN	Majestic Care of Jefferson Pointe ⚠	Fort Wayne	3.90	0.36	1	1
IN	Majestic Care of Sheridan	Sheridan	3.11	0.45	5	2
IN	Majestic Care of Fort Wayne	Fort Wayne	3.05	0.38	4	1
IN	Majestic Care of Deming Park ⚠	Terre Haute	3.41	0.73	2	2
IN	Majestic Care of Avon	Avon	3.80	0.54	2	1
IN	Majestic Care of West Allen	Fort Wayne	2.90	0.24	3	1
IN	Majestic Care of Southport	Indianapolis	3.61	0.52	2	1
IN	Majestic Care of Lafayette ⚠	Lafayette	3.06	0.59	1	1
IN	Majestic Care of South Bend	South Bend	3.61	0.58	2	1
IN	Saint Anthony ⚠	Crown Point	3.47	0.43	1	1
IN	Majestic Care of New Haven	New Haven	3.48	0.59	2	1
IN	Majestic Care of Terre Haute	Terre Haute	3.76	0.40	4	2
OH	Majestic Care of Whitehall	Whitehall	3.04	0.47	2	1

1–20 of 34

Methodology

This dashboard uses CMS Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) data (2017–2025), along with other public datasets (Provider Information, Affiliated Entity). State staffing standards via MACPAC (2022).

Metrics

Hours Per Resident Day (HPRD): Total staff hours ÷ average residents. Example: 350 hours for 100 residents = 3.5 HPRD.
Direct Care (excl. Admin, DON): Hours per resident day for direct care staff only (RN, LPN, CNA, NAtrn, MedAide), excluding administrative and supervisory roles.
Contract Staff %: Share of hours provided by contract staff.
Census: Average number of residents during the period.

Note: Some states set minimums (e.g., NJ, CA, NY at 3.5 HPRD); a federal 3.48 minimum was recently overturned (2025). A 2001 federal study linked 4.1 HPRD to better outcomes in that study. Staffing needs vary by resident acuity (case-mix), day, and shift. Estimates on PBJ Takeaway assume roughly 60% of staff are CNAs.

Data transparency

The PBJ Dashboard pulls directly from CMS data and is carefully vetted for accuracy. Still, sometimes a bug sneaks into the jelly. That could mean: a systemic CMS data reporting issue (e.g., Q2 2017 contract staffing, missing data in 2020 due to COVID) or there could be a coding error on our part. If you spot something that looks off, please let me know via the contact form so I can set things right.

Request custom PBJ analysis for litigation and investigative reporting.Request custom PBJ analysis.