Skip to content
FonteumThe Graph

By use case

Exclusion & monitoring (self-serve)Free roster screen — no accountExclusion & sanctions screeningCredentialing & provider-data enrichmentAudit evidence & defensible programsProvider data for AI / RAGM&A & network diligence

By buyer

Compliance & riskJournalists & newsroomsDevelopers & AI teams

By industry

HealthcareProviders & facilitiesSanctionsOFAC / EU / UK / UN / OIG / SAMFederal contractingSAM · USASpending · FAPIIS

The capability layer

APIREST + bulk accessFor AI agentsModel Context Protocol serverFHIR R4 APIBulk exportAudit packSigned report artifacts; source facts remain separately citedReconciliationSource-vs-source diffsAI answers with sourcesHow records link upHistoryRetained versions for named sources

The differentiator

Coverage & sourcesThe catalogFreshnessMethodologyCare CompareFacility qualityAI answers, comparedBrowse all datasets →
Research

The dev on-ramp

DocsAPI referenceConnect your AI agent (MCP)One-paste installFHIR sandboxLive API surfaceQuickstartStatusChangelogSDKs & integrations
Pricing
Sign inFree roster screen →Get a signed certificate →

Solutions

Exclusion & monitoring (self-serve)Exclusion & sanctions screeningCredentialing & provider-data enrichmentAudit evidence & defensible programsProvider data for AI / RAGM&A & network diligenceCompliance & riskJournalists & newsroomsDevelopers & AI teamsHealthcareSanctionsFederal contracting

Platform

APIFor AI agentsFHIR R4 APIBulk exportAudit packReconciliationAI answers with sourcesHow records link upHistory

Data

Coverage & sourcesFreshnessMethodologyCare CompareAI answers, comparedBrowse all datasets →
Research

Developers

DocsAPI referenceConnect your AI agent (MCP)FHIR sandboxQuickstartStatusChangelogSDKs & integrations
Pricing
Sign inFree roster screen →Get a signed certificate →

← Nursing Home Data by State

AZ · Fonteum Federal Healthcare Data

Worst nursing homes in Arizona, ranked by CMS inspection citations

The most-cited nursing home in Arizona is SANDSTONE OF TUCSON REHAB CENTRE (TUCSON), with 75 CMS health-inspection deficiency citations on record. Arizona has 1,000 citations across 43 facilities; the ten most-cited are ranked below, with daily nurse staffing (PBJ) and PECOS ownership records for context.

Arizona Summary

Deficiency Citations

1,000

CMS NH Health Citations

Facilities Cited

43

Distinct CCNs with citations

SNF Enrollments

—

PECOS-enrolled SNFs

Staffing Days Loaded

1,000

PBJ facility-day records

The 10 most-cited nursing homes in Arizona

CCNFacility NameCityCitations
035099SANDSTONE OF TUCSON REHAB CENTRETUCSON75
035016HANDMAKER HOME FOR THE AGINGTUCSON49
035093HAVEN OF COTTONWOODCOTTONWOOD46
035114Mountain View ManorPRESCOTT45
035094HAVEN OF SEDONASEDONA42
035095Desert Cove Nursing CenterCHANDLER39
035004Santa Rosa Care CenterTUCSON38
035073HAVEN HEALTH GREEN VALLEY, LLCGREEN VALLEY35
035062DESERT HAVEN CARE CENTERPHOENIX31
035117PAYSON CARE CENTERPAYSON30

Source: CMS NH Health Deficiency Citations (Provider Data Catalog). Higher citation counts reflect more survey findings, not necessarily worse outcomes — survey intensity varies by state.

Staffing Overview — Hours Per Resident Day (HPRD)

Staff CategoryArizona AvgNational AvgΔ vs National
RN (Direct Care)0.450.38+0.07
CNA2.342.32+0.02

Source: CMS Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) Daily Nurse Staffing. National averages from CMS Five-Star PY2023 staffing methodology. HPRD = total hours ÷ daily resident census.

Ownership Data Coverage

No PECOS enrollment data loaded for Arizona yet.

Source: CMS PECOS SNF All Owners (ACA Section 6101; 42 CFR § 424.516). Ownership percentage: 25.0 = 25%. Role codes 34/35 = direct/indirect ownership ≥ 5%.

Access Full Arizona Dataset

Download the complete Arizona nursing home deficiency, staffing, and ownership records as JSON or CSV with field-level provenance headers.

Bulk Data Manifest →Researcher API Docs

Data is federal public-domain (17 U.S.C. § 105). Fonteum adds normalized CCN keys, field-level provenance, and snapshot attestation. No trust claims made — data quality reflects CMS source fidelity. Methodology · All States · Full Deficiencies Dataset

What’s on file, by the numbers

Platform snapshot · 2026-07-15

13.4Mproviders & companiesProviders, organizations, owners, and facilities on file
26.2Msource-linked factsSource-linked field facts in the dated platform snapshot
35sources liveCrosswalk-resolved sources with a snapshot in the preceding 45 days
111sources integratedActive registry rows; integration does not establish a load
13state Medicaid jurisdictionsDistinct states represented in the state-exclusions serving table

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

Published figures name their source and date.

Source and date

Published research identifies its government file and observation date. Source-file SHA-256 coverage is disclosed separately; facts do not currently link deterministically to signatures.

Reproducible SQL

Each study ships the exact query behind its figures, run against the same dated copy of the federal file we used. Re-run it yourself.

Daily observations

The platform records table row counts daily. Those observations detect local drift; they do not imply that an upstream publisher released or Fonteum ingested new data that day.

Named medical review

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

Read the full provenance and attestation methodology →

Fonteum
Platform
Platform overviewAPIFor AI agents (MCP)FHIR R4 APIBulk exportAudit packReconciliationAI answers with sourcesHow records link upHistory
Solutions
All solutionsExclusion & sanctions screeningCredentialing & enrichmentAudit evidenceProvider data for AI / RAGUse casesM&A & network diligenceCompliance & riskJournalists & newsroomsDevelopers & AI teams
Data & sources
Coverage & sourcesBrowse all datasetsState Medicaid exclusionsFreshnessMethodologyCare CompareNursing homesRecall recordsSanctions screeningOIG LEIE listOwnershipStaffingDeficienciesSpecial Focus Facilities
Federal contracting
OverviewAwards during active exclusionFederal debarment scorecardProcurement questionsContractor lookup8(a) certification guide
Developers
Developer hubDocsAPI referenceQuickstartStatusChangelogSDKs & integrationsWebhooks
Research & guides
Research hubLearnHow it worksGuidesHealthcare provider dataExclusion & sanctions screeningProvider credentialing dataHealthcare data for AIHospital margin gapProvider access gapsGlossaryComparisonsSourced data vs plain LLM answersCitationsManifestoWhy Fonteum
Company
AboutPressCustomersPricingContactEditorial policyCorrections
Trust & legal
TrustTrust markQualitySecurityPrivacy policyTerms of serviceAPI termsMedical disclaimer

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

© 2026 Fonteum LLC. All rights reserved.

·hello@fonteum.com

A public-records graph that exposes source and observation metadata where supplied.

Fonteum's provenance ledger contained 26.2M source-linked facts on July 12, 2026. All but 14 carried a source-file SHA-256; 0 linked deterministically to a signature. Inspect a supplied snapshot id at fonteum.com/verify · source-mark coverage and limitations.
Request access→