ElderFacts Pro · for plaintiff nursing-home litigation
Your defendant's federal record: worked up in 72 hours, $495.
A family calls about a facility, and you already know it's a case. What you don't have is the research team to build the winning arguments, before the statute clock and two competing firms move. Send us the facility. Within 72 hours you get a private page your paralegal didn't have to build: citation history in CMS's own vocabulary, day-level staffing against expected in the injury window, the penalty record, and the entities behind the license, every number stamped to its CMS release with the inspection report one click away.
Speak to a Human, Get a Demo Today See a complete sample workup →
Answers within 72 hours (rush delivery available)
No card, no sales sequence. Just email us. A 15-min demo.
When do you actually reach for this?
Arming the case, under time pressure
Cases walk in the door; you don't prospect facilities. When one walks in, you already know it's a case. The hard part is building the winning arguments before well-funded big law builds theirs. The federal groundwork is scattered across ProPublica Nursing Home Inspect, Care Compare, and the state agency site, and it sits queued behind everything else she does, so it becomes "Thursday." The firm that walks in with the record already worked up moves first; the one still assembling it loses ground it never recovers.
Notice and pattern, in the injury window
The two things that move a demand number: the facility was cited before, same failure, same F-tag, and staffing was short on the days your client was actually in the building. Neither is in any free tool. The workup shows the cited → corrected → cited cycle per F-tag, dated, and computes daily payroll-based staffing against CMS's own expected levels for the exact quarter your claim needs: a sentence like "RN staffing below expected on 58% of days in Q2 2025," with your client's residency window drawn on the chart.
Who you actually name
The shell LLC on the license is rarely the whole answer. The workup graphs the operating company, the property holder, the management company, and the 5%-or-greater owners as disclosed to CMS (with effective dates, because "who was in the chain on the date of injury" is the question the complaint turns on) and lists the sibling facilities under the same management, each with its own citation and penalty record.
What's in a workup, and what do we say when the record is thin?
Six sections, one private tokenized page, delivered inside 72 hours: the matter context you gave us · citation history in CMS vocabulary with scope/severity and dispute flags · PBJ staffing-shortfall analysis for the quarters you care about · federal penalties traced to their surveys · the ownership graph · and the sourcing block that makes every number traceable. When the federal record doesn't support the theory, the workup says so on its face, before you spend intake budget on it. That verdict is part of what you're paying for.
Read the complete sample: every section, fictional facility →
What does working with us actually look like?
Start to finish, here's the arc: a family calls, you take the case, we hand back the worked-up defendant, you build and file, and we keep watching that defendant for the years the case runs. Two views tell the same story: the case lifecycle up top, and the 3-month engagement week by week underneath.
Here is the working detail: the 3-month engagement, every step placed on a per-week grid across five workstreams. Diamonds are single-day milestones; green marks the moment something is delivered or included.
What does it cost?
- One facility, fully worked: citations in CMS vocabulary, PBJ shortfall analysis, penalties, ownership graph, sourcing block.
- Citation-ready: dataset + release date + 2567 deep links + certified-copy instructions on every export.
- Fees paid in any 60-day span credit in full toward a Pro plan.
- 7 workups included, any time across the 3 months, screening or active defendants. Beyond the 7: $495 each. The 72-hour turnaround applies to the first 3 concurrent requests; further requests queue next business day (24-hour rush on request). We publish the constraint instead of discovering it together during your deposition week.
- Case monitoring: a separate engagement, priced on request. We watch the defendant's federal record across the life of the case: new surveys, citations, penalties, dispute outcomes, and ownership and rating changes surface to you as CMS publishes them, for the 2–3 years a case actually runs, so nobody re-checks before a filing or deposition and you hear it first if a number you relied on moves.
- PBJ staffing analytics · co-ownership graph · citation-ready exports · matter-numbered receipts.
- Or ask about our $399/month plan on a 12-month term.
- 2 workups every month included, screening or active defendants. Beyond the 2: $495 each.
- $399 a month on a 12-month term. Export everything, any time (see Continuity, below).
- The federal record wired into your own systems: an MCP server for your AI tools or a direct API, whichever fits the enterprise. Scope, integration, and price negotiated case by case.
When the engagement beats paying per workup
| Workups in 3 months | À-la-carte ($495 × n) | 3-month engagement | Monthly plan ($399/mo) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | $990 | $1,995 | $1,197 |
| 4 | $1,980 | $1,995 | $1,197 |
| 6 | $2,970 | $1,995 | $1,197 |
| 7 | $3,465 | $1,995 | $1,692 (6 incl. + 1) |
| Flat price · what's included | $495 × n | $1,995 · up to 7 | $399/mo · 2 a month |
We don't do cold sales calls, and we move at the speed small firms make decisions: slowly. We won't pad this page with logos we don't have: founding firms who consent to be named are listed as they consent, reference calls are arranged on request, and until then the sample workup is the reference.
Why not just use the free tools?
The core of this is public. Your paralegal, or an AI agent, can assemble it from the free tools. What you're paying for is what that assembly can't give you: the scattered record pre-joined, every figure verified to its source, and the judgment of what actually matters to your case.
| What screening needs | Free stack (ProPublica · Care Compare · state site) | Institution Workup / Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Deficiency history, fines, severity | Fully there. Full-text 2567 search, A–L filters, penalties. The free tools are good. Use them. | Same record, assembled into one dated document in CMS vocabulary. Convenience, not exclusivity. |
| Staffing in the injury quarter | Star-rating averages only. Daily PBJ analysis isn't in any free tool. It's a data-engineering job. | Computed per quarter: days below expected staffing, by discipline, from the federal PBJ files. |
| Ownership web & sibling facilities | Owner lists per facility; entity rollups since 2023. Cross-facility tracing with dates is manual, slow, error-prone. | Graphed with effective dates, from your defendant to every commonly-run facility, as disclosed to CMS. |
| Watching the record for 2–3 years | Someone has to remember to re-check before every filing and deposition. Nobody does. | Monitoring is its own product: changes surface to you as CMS publishes them, a separate engagement, priced on request. |
| Time & accounting | ~2 paralegal-hours per facility, firm overhead, queued. | 72h turnaround (24h rush on request). $495. |
| History beyond ~3 survey cycles | Not in free tools. State records requests. | Not in ours yet either. Back-history is on our research track; we won't sell it before it exists. |
If your practice sees one nursing-home matter a year, keep the free stack, sincerely. Pro is for firms where screening is a weekly reality and a partner's decision is waiting on the record.
Who owns this facility? Here's what that costs to answer today.
There is no single place to look up who really owns a nursing home. The GAO said it flatly: identifying owners is a "time- and resource-intensive effort because there is no single, authoritative data source." The realistic workup your paralegal runs today is an eleven-step stitch: the CMS ownership and change-of-ownership files, ProPublica's entity pages, NPI lookups, advocacy reports and trade press, secretary-of-state pulls in every relevant state, EDGAR if a public REIT surfaces, state cost reports, county deeds and UCC filings, a PACER sweep, and a public-records request that comes back in two to eight weeks. And the output is still probabilistic, because the same investor is spelled four ways across four databases and flat owner lists can't answer "who owned it on the date of injury."
ElderFacts pre-joins the federal layer (SNF All Owners, enrollment and change-of-ownership records, the affiliated-entity groupings) into one effective-dated graph, with the name-variant chaos absorbed by the graph instead of your paralegal. "Who was in the ownership and control chain on the date of injury, and what else do they touch" becomes a sixty-second lookup instead of a multi-hour federal-data assembly with hand-built entity resolution.
The honest version of the pitch: ElderFacts for the federal picture in sixty seconds, then your paralegal spends her remaining hours on the two things software can't do, the state paper trail and discovery, already knowing exactly which doors to knock on.
- State secretary-of-state tracing. We don't peel anonymous Delaware or Wyoming LLCs or read scanned annual reports. The graph hands your paralegal the exact entity names and dates to search; the searching is still hers.
- Deeds and UCC filings. County records remain county records.
- State licensure and cost-report files. The records request still takes weeks. We tell you which files are worth requesting, not what's in them.
- Discovery. Nothing substitutes for a 30(b)(6) deposition and document production. The graph arms the complaint and the outline; it is not evidence.
- Data CMS never collected. Where an investor structured below the 5% disclosure threshold, controls through a management agreement, or simply didn't report, the federal record is silent, and so, for those links, is anything built on it. Ownership on every page is "as disclosed to CMS," and PE/REIT involvement is materially under-captured in federal data; treat our flags as a starting point to corroborate, not a finding.
Can you trust it when opposing counsel reads it aloud?
Nothing exported from a third-party aggregator is self-authenticating evidence. The certified CMS-2567 from the state survey agency is, and citations get disputed and can change on appeal. So instead of promising more than a research page can honestly deliver (a promise that dies at the first demo), every artifact carries the discipline that survives a provenance attack:
We recount the federal record in CMS's own vocabulary and characterize no one's conduct. "Cited at scope/severity G" is the record's phrase, and ours.
What if you disappear?
Fair question. We're a small vendor, and you're trusting us with matters that run for years. So here's what happens to your saved work and monitoring if we ever fold, spelled out in the contract, not buried in an FAQ.
- Export everything, always. Every workup, every monitored defendant, every export: yours to download in open formats (CSV/JSON/PDF) at any time, account active or not. No export tax, no request queue.
- Wind-down commitment. If we ever discontinue the service: 90 days' written notice, a final data refresh, full export delivered to you, and a pro-rated refund of any prepaid term. In the terms, not the marketing.
- Artifacts outlive us, and the federal record itself. Public data is being removed and repealed all over; each workup is a dated, tokenized snapshot that preserves the record as it stood, cited to its source, so the facts your case rests on survive even after the public version changes or disappears.
- Monitoring runs by engagement. A separate engagement, active while it's running; if it lapses, monitoring stops and you keep every artifact produced to date.
- Independent. Your case never depends on us. Every workup cites the CMS datasets, release dates, and 2567s, and certified copies come from the state agency. If we vanished tomorrow, everything we handed you still traces to its source. Better data, better results.
The trial is your next intake, not a demo
Send us the institutions you're screening right now. Each comes back as a complete workup (a private page, inside 72 hours), and you judge the product on your own intake instead of our demo data. The trial runs 30 days or until your next nursing-home intake, whichever comes first (90-day outer cap), up to 10 concurrent workups. Concierge-opened: a person reads your email and opens the trial, because at this size that's honestly how it works. No card. One trial per firm.
Speak to a Human, Get a Demo Today
Include the facility names (CCNs if handy) and, if a matter is live, the residency window you care about. That's the whole intake form.
See the document first.
We want you to see a piece of what others have been happy to pay for. The sections, the stamps, the flags, and where the suggested focus could lie. It's meant to be read like a research report. Only this report is for your case.
The terms and figures shown throughout are a sample. Your engagement may look different: scope, cadence, and pricing are set with you.
elderfacts · Learn More About Our Methodology