FirstAlerts
Nursing Home EnforcementVersion 2

Life Care Center of Andover Fined $25,490 in Andover, Kansas

A $25,490 fine was assessed against Life Care Center of Andover on May 14, 2026, according to the federal nursing home enforcement record in the CMS Care Compare registry.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 19, 2026, 10:25 a.m. ET
, at in , Kansas, was assessed a of $25,490 on May 14, 2026, according to the federal nursing home enforcement record published in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Care Compare registry. The registry lists the penalty type as a and the penalty date as May 14, 2026. The facility appears under CMS certification number . The enforcement entry was processed on July 1, 2026. The enforcement record states the penalty only. It does not state what the facility was cited for, what happened to any resident, whether anyone was harmed, or whether the penalty is under appeal. All of the details above — the facility name, its address, the city and state, the certification number, the amount, the penalty date and the processing date — come from that CMS enforcement record, which is available at the facility's Care Compare listing.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 219 Aug 2026, 14:25current

    Named the source record explicitly as the federal nursing home enforcement record in the CMS Care Compare registry, in the dek and body. Printed the facility address exactly as the record gives it (621 W 21ST) instead of the tidied form. Broke the single block into paragraphs listing penalty type, penalty date, certification number and processing date as the record states them. Kept the record's own statement of its limits verbatim, without characterizing the reporting or its status. No facts added or attribution removed.

  2. Version 119 Aug 2026, 14:15

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.