Nursing-home research · National data report

The CMS Abuse Icon: How Common It Is, and Where

CMS flags nursing homes cited in specific abuse-related categories with an icon. This report measures how many carry it, how sharply the rate varies by state, and why the icon's absence carries far less information than its presence.

By SeniorCareRating.com Editorial Team · Published 2026-08-06 · CMS data released 2026-08-21

What the data shows

Of the 14,700 CMS-certified nursing homes in this snapshot, 1,48210.1% — carry the CMS abuse icon. The rate is uneven across states, from 29.5% in Illinois to 0% in New Hampshire among states with at least 20 facilities. 26.3% of the 2,850 counties in this dataset contain any flagged facility at all. The icon is a CMS-published designation based on citations in specific categories over a defined lookback period — it is reproduced here as CMS reports it. SeniorCareRating.com does not investigate facilities, does not make findings of abuse, and adds no characterization of its own.
Facilities analyzed
14,700
CMS-certified
Carry the icon
10.1%
1,482 facilities
Highest state rate
29.5%
Illinois
Counties with none
73.7%
of 2,850 counties

What the icon actually marks

A CMS designation with specific criteria — not a general judgement.

CMS displays the icon for facilities cited under specific abuse-related categories within a defined recent period, according to criteria CMS sets and publishes. It is derived from the inspection record: it marks that citations of a particular kind were recorded, in surveys conducted by state survey agencies. It is not a separate investigation, and it is not a statement that any particular incident occurred at a facility today.

Two consequences follow, and they are the reason this report exists. First, because the icon rests on a lookback window, it can appear or disappear as older citations age out and new surveys land — status is a point-in-time fact, not a permanent label. Second, because it rests on citations, it inherits everything that shapes citation records: a facility is only cited for what a surveyor found, and surveyors visit some facilities more often than others. Our guide on the CMS abuse icon covers the criteria in more detail.

How the rate varies by state

The share of each state's certified nursing homes carrying the icon.

Highest abuse-icon rate, by state

States where the largest share of certified facilities carry the CMS abuse icon.

Illinois
29.5% (197)
Wyoming
27.8% (10)
Arizona
25% (35)
Colorado
24.8% (52)
Connecticut
23% (44)
Vermont
18.2% (6)
North Dakota
16.7% (12)
New Mexico
16.2% (11)
Delaware
15.9% (7)
Montana
14.8% (9)
Nationally: 10.1% of 14,700 certified facilities.

A higher rate does not establish that more abuse occurs in a state. Citations are produced by state survey agencies, whose inspection frequency and citation practice differ, and a state that inspects more thoroughly can record more of what it finds.

CMS-reported data · updated 2026-08-21 · site-calculated context, not a CMS rating

Methodology
Rate = facilities CMS flags with the abuse icon ÷ all CMS-certified facilities in the state. States with fewer than 20 facilities are excluded from this ranking (3 excluded); they remain in the national totals.

This spread should be read the same way as every other cross-state comparison on this site, and for the same reason. The icon derives from citations, citations come from state survey agencies, and those agencies differ in staffing, caseload, and practice. A state recording a higher rate may be inspecting more thoroughly rather than housing worse care — the public data cannot separate the two, so this report does not rank states by quality and neither should a reader.

How concentrated the designation is

Where flagged facilities cluster, and what that means for a search.

Highest abuse-icon rate, by county

Counties with the largest share of flagged facilities, among counties with a meaningful facility base.

Allegheny, PA
32.7% (17)
Sacramento, CA
32.4% (12)
Cook, IL
31.7% (64)
Jackson, MO
30.8% (12)
Tarrant, TX
26.8% (19)
Sarasota, FL
26.7% (8)
Capitol, CT
26.2% (17)
Erie, NY
23.5% (8)
Oakland, MI
20.5% (9)
750 of 2,850 counties (26.3%) contain at least one flagged facility.

County rates move sharply on small numbers. These are the counties where the designation is most concentrated in this snapshot, not a ranking of county care.

CMS-reported data · updated 2026-08-21 · site-calculated context, not a CMS rating

Methodology
Rate = flagged facilities ÷ all certified facilities in the county. Counties with fewer than 25 facilities are excluded: at roughly one flagged facility in ten nationally, a county with only a handful of facilities swings by tens of percentage points on a single one and would top a percentage table on noise alone.

The practical implication is about what a search will look like. 26.3% of counties contain at least one flagged facility, and 10.1% of certified facilities carry the icon nationally — so across an ordinary shortlist, seeing no icon is the expected result rather than a distinguishing feature of the facilities on it. Absence is what the data looks like for 89.9% of facilities.

Why absence carries less information than presence

The asymmetry that governs how the field should be read.

Presence and absence are not symmetric here, and treating them as though they were is the main way this field gets misread. When CMS flags a facility, something specific and documented sits behind it: citations in defined categories, recorded by surveyors, within a recent window. That is substantive information worth taking seriously and worth asking the facility about directly.

An unflagged facility, by contrast, is simply a facility that does not currently meet the criteria — which is true of roughly 89.9% of certified nursing homes. It is the default state, not an achievement, and it says nothing about the rest of the facility’s record. A facility can carry serious inspection findings, federal penalty records, or low staffing while carrying no icon at all.

So the icon belongs at the end of a review rather than the start of one. The substantive record is the inspection history — its severity letters and dates, the federal penalty records, and staffing. This field adds to that reading; it cannot substitute for it.

Limits of this analysis

What the public data can and cannot tell you.

These figures describe a dated CMS snapshot and not live conditions; icon status changes as citations age out of the lookback window and new surveys are recorded. Rates describe the CMS record, not the incidence of abuse, which this data does not measure and this site does not estimate. Nothing here is a finding about any facility, and nothing here recommends or advises against any facility. Confirm current status on Medicare’s Care Compare. If you have a concern about a specific facility, the official reporting channels are the route. See Methodology and Data updates. In this snapshot 3 states or territories record no flagged facility at all.

The CMS Research Brief

New CMS data releases, Special Focus Facility changes, and each new analysis.

One email covering what changed in the public CMS record: dataset releases and what moved in them, additions to and departures from the Special Focus Facility list, and any new analysis published here. Written for people who work with this data. Roughly monthly.

I agree to receive the CMS Research Brief by email and understand I can unsubscribe at any time. Your address is stored only to send this brief. No health or care information is collected, nothing is shared with providers or advertisers, and SeniorCareRating.com does not sell or rent subscriber data.

Related research