Smaller home · May offer a more intimate, personalized care environment.
The Pines at Rolling Meadows
The Pines, located in Wichita Falls, TX, is a senior living community within the Rolling Meadows senior living campus, offering assisted living with specialization in memory care services. They offer residents a secure home-like environment where they are provided 24/7 supervision, security, and assistance with daily living activities.
Some of the amenities they offer include meal preparation services, access to an on-site physician, housekeeping, and laundry services. They also curate special activities that promote the residents overall wellness, and enhance their independence.
Community insights.
About This Community
The Pines at Rolling Meadows is legally operated by Wichita Falls Retirement Foundation.
Inspection History
In Texas, the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) is the primary regulatory body that conducts unannounced inspections and publishes quality reports for all long-term care homes.
Inspection Scorecard
This scorecard compares key inspection, citation, and complaint metrics at this facility against the Texas state average. Metrics rated ≥15% worse than average are highlighted in red; those ≥15% better are highlighted in green.
• Inspections with citations (at TX avg) 3 Better Metrics better than Texas average:
• Total citations (57% below)
• Health citations (25% below)
• Enforcement actions (100% below)
Citations
| This Facility | TX Average | vs. TX Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Total citations
| 3 | 7.0 | This facility has 57% fewer total citations than a typical Texas nursing home (3 vs. TX avg 7).↓ 57% better |
|
Health citations
| 3 | 4.0 | This facility has 25% fewer health citations than a typical Texas nursing home (3 vs. TX avg 4).↓ 25% better |
|
Enforcement actions
| 0 | 0.2 | This facility has 100% fewer enforcement actions than a typical Texas nursing home (0 vs. TX avg 0.2).↓ 100% better |
Inspections
| This Facility | TX Average | vs. TX Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Inspections with citations
| 1 | 1.0 | This facility has inspections with citations in line with the Texas average (1 vs. TX avg 1).— At avg |
Penalties and fines
Federal penalties imposed by CMS for regulatory violations, including civil money penalties (fines) and denials of payment for new Medicare/Medicaid admissions.
Source: CMS Penalties Database · Data as of Oct 2026
No penalties in the past 3 years
No civil money penalties or payment denials on record since Oct 2023.
Money and staffing.
The Pines at Rolling Meadows’s finances from its CMS cost report for the fiscal year ending December 2024, compared with 225 Texas nursing homes that filed a recent report. Includes all financial data for this property, which could include management/ownership changes.
Is it financially stable?
Losing money on care, but less than last year
−6.6% operating margin
+9.1 pts vs prior year
An operating loss in 8 of the last 8 reported years. Other income ($2.5M) turns it into a net profit to $1.9M. Watch for cost-cutting that reaches staffing.
Does it invest in staff?
Spends less on payroll than most Texas homes
53.7% payroll share of revenue
TX average 68.8%Rank #128 / 202Payroll % of net patient revenue — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 128th out of 202 nursing homes we track in Texas for payroll % of net patient revenue. Shows payroll as a percentage of net patient revenue versus the Texas average, among facilities reporting a recent fiscal year. Below 25% may signal understaffing or heavy agency use — read with Staffing ratings. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Texas that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.
Payroll rose $0.3M while revenue rose $0.7M. A low share can mean leaner staffing; check hours per resident in the staffing section.
FY 2024 scorecard
Each row shows the FY 2024 figure, the change since the prior report, the trend, and how it compares with Texas homes.
Revenue & profit
Losing money on care
| Metric | FY 2024 | vs prior year | Trend 2017 → 2024Trend | TX median | Compared with TX homesRank in TX | In short |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net patient revenue What the home earns from resident care, after discounts and bad debt. | $9.1M | +$0.7M | Trend 20172024 | TX median $9.3M | Rank in TX Rank #118 / 225Net patient revenue — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 118th out of 225 nursing homes we track in Texas for net patient revenue. Shows this facility's net patient revenue compared to the Texas average, among facilities reporting a recent fiscal year. Higher revenue generally means more resources for staffing and capital — read alongside Payroll %. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Texas that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 48% of homes | Below TX median Higher net patient revenue than 48% of TX homes that filed a recent report. Revenue mostly follows how big a home is. |
| Operating expenses Everything it costs to run the home: staff, supplies, rent, admin. | $9.7M | −$0.0M | Trend 20172024 | TX median $9.8M | Rank in TX Rank #115 / 225Operating expenses — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 115th out of 225 nursing homes we track in Texas for operating expenses. Shows everything it cost to run the home — staff, supplies, rent, admin — compared with other Texas homes reporting a recent fiscal year. Expenses in dollars mostly follow how big a home is, so this compares size, not efficiency; read it next to operating margin. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Texas that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 49% of homes | Exceeds revenue Operating expenses are higher than net patient revenue, so resident care runs at a loss. |
| Net patient income Revenue minus operating expenses. Negative means care loses money. | −$0.6M | +$0.7M | Trend 20172024 | TX median −$0.4M | Rank in TX Rank #132 / 225Net patient income — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 132nd out of 225 nursing homes we track in Texas for net patient income. Shows net patient revenue minus operating expenses, compared with other Texas homes reporting a recent fiscal year. Homes that lost money on care are in the pool too, so a rank in the bottom half usually means a loss. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Texas that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 42% of homes | Loss, narrowing Resident care lost money this year, less than in the prior report. |
| Operating margin Net patient income as a share of revenue. The clearest health signal. | −6.6% | +9.1 pts | Trend 20172024 | TX median −5.0% | Rank in TX Rank #128 / 225Operating margin — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 128th out of 225 nursing homes we track in Texas for operating margin. Shows net patient income as a share of net patient revenue, compared with other Texas homes reporting a recent fiscal year. Unlike the dollar figures it does not follow size, so it is the fairest comparison of financial health between a small home and a large one. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Texas that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 43% of homes | Loss A negative margin means resident care costs more than it earns. |
| Other income Money not from resident care: investments, grants, services. | $2.5M | — | Trend — | TX median $0.4M | Rank in TX Rank #32 / 214Other income — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 32nd out of 214 nursing homes we track in Texas for other income. Shows income from outside resident care — investments, grants, rentals, services — compared with other Texas homes reporting a recent fiscal year. It is not part of net patient revenue; a high rank here can offset a loss on care. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Texas that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 85% of homes | Offsets part of the loss Income from outside resident care covers part of the loss on care. |
| Net income The bottom line after other income. | $1.9M | +$0.4M | Trend — | TX median $0.3M | Rank in TX Rank #25 / 207Net income — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 25th out of 207 nursing homes we track in Texas for net income. Shows the bottom line after other income, compared with other Texas homes reporting a recent fiscal year. Homes with a net loss are in the pool too, so a rank in the bottom half usually means a loss. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Texas that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 88% of homes | Profit The bottom line is above zero after other income. |
Staffing spend
Spends less of revenue on staff than most Texas homes
| Metric | FY 2024 | vs prior year | Trend 2017 → 2024Trend | TX median | Compared with TX homesRank in TX | In short |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Payroll costs Salaries and wage-related benefits, not counting contract labor. | $4.9M | +$0.3M | Trend 20172024 | TX median $4.9M | Rank in TX Rank #116 / 225Payroll costs — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 116th out of 225 nursing homes we track in Texas for payroll costs. Shows total staff payroll — salaries plus wage-related benefits — benchmarked to the Texas average, among facilities reporting a recent fiscal year. Higher payroll relative to peers often signals better staffing and less reliance on contract labor. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Texas that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 49% of homes | Below TX median Higher payroll than 49% of TX homes. Payroll in dollars mostly follows how big a home is, so this compares size, not staffing levels. |
| Payroll share of revenue Payroll divided by revenue. Higher usually means more staff per resident. | 53.7% | −1.2 pts | Trend 20172024 | TX median 57.6% | Rank in TX Rank #128 / 202Payroll % of net patient revenue — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 128th out of 202 nursing homes we track in Texas for payroll % of net patient revenue. Shows payroll as a percentage of net patient revenue versus the Texas average, among facilities reporting a recent fiscal year. Below 25% may signal understaffing or heavy agency use — read with Staffing ratings. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Texas that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 37% of homes | 15.1 pts under TX average The TX average is 68.8% of revenue. Within 3 points of it reads as near the average. |
Charts, 2017–2024 2 charts · TX benchmark drawn as a dashed line
Revenue, expenses and income
What the home earned from resident care (net patient revenue), what it cost to run (operating expenses) and the difference between the two (net patient income), for each fiscal year it filed a CMS cost report.
USD, millions
Net patient revenue Operating expenses Net patient income
Where revenue goes
Both lines are a share of net patient revenue. Payroll share is what goes to salaries and wage-related benefits; operating margin is what is left after every operating cost (below 0%, resident care lost money). The dashed line is the Texas payroll average.
% of net patient revenue
Payroll share Operating margin TX payroll average
Year-by-year data, 2017–2024 every reported year · latest first, scroll sideways
| Metric | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net patient revenue | $8.3M | $8.4M | $8.2M | $3.3M | $7.7M | $8.3M | $8.4M | $9.1M |
| Operating expenses | $8.5M | $8.9M | $9.0M | $8.9M | $9.2M | $9.8M | $9.7M | $9.7M |
| Net patient income | −$0.2M | −$0.4M | −$0.8M | −$5.6M | −$1.6M | −$1.5M | −$1.3M | −$0.6M |
| Operating margin | −2.0% | −5.1% | −9.9% | −167.4% | −20.6% | −17.8% | −15.7% | −6.6% |
| Net income | $1.4M | −$0.3M | $2.1M | $2.4M | $1.1M | −$1.3M | $1.4M | $1.9M |
| Payroll costs | $3.9M | $4.0M | $4.2M | $4.3M | $4.4M | $4.4M | $4.6M | $4.9M |
| Payroll share of revenue | 46.6% | 46.8% | 51.5% | 129.0% | 57.3% | 53.0% | 54.9% | 53.7% |
| Beds | 86 | 86 | 86 | 86 | 86 | 86 | 86 | 86 |
| Gross revenue | $8.3M | $8.4M | $8.2M | $3.3M | $7.6M | $8.2M | $8.4M | $9.1M |
| Salaries | $3.5M | $3.5M | $3.8M | $3.9M | $4.0M | $4.0M | $4.2M | $4.5M |
| Wage-related costs | $0.4M | $0.4M | $0.4M | $0.4M | $0.4M | $0.4M | $0.4M | $0.4M |
| Contract labor | $0.4M | $0.5M | $0.3M | $0.3M | $0.3M | $0.2M | $0.2M | $0.3M |
| Other operating costs | $4.6M | $4.9M | $4.8M | $4.6M | $4.9M | $5.4M | $5.1M | $4.8M |
| Net patient revenue per day | $477 | $491 | $471 | $209 | $553 | $526 | $508 | $533 |
| Cost per day | $486 | $516 | $518 | $558 | $667 | $620 | $588 | $568 |
| Average length of stay | 41.9 days | 36.1 days | 30.9 days | 29.0 days | 26.7 days | 24.9 days | 26.5 days | 48.4 days |
Showing 2024–2022 · scroll sideways for 5 earlier years
Earlier and partial years are in the download. Download CSV
Who this home usually serves
Residents split by who pays for their care: Medicare, Medicaid, or private pay and other sources.Primarily short stays
Residents typically stay for brief periods, with frequent admissions and discharges throughout the year.
Places of interest near The Pines at Rolling Meadows
4.9 miles from city center
Estimated distance in miles from Wichita Falls's city center to The Pines at Rolling Meadows's address, calculated via Google Maps.
Calculate Travel Distance to The Pines at Rolling Meadows
Add your location
Compare Nursing Homes around Wichita Falls
Info below is compiled from CMS reports & the TX Health & Human Services Commission (HHSC), senior community websites & trusted data sources such as Walk Score & BBB.
Communities are listed from highest-ranked to lowest-ranked based on our methodology.
The facility name. Click to view the full profile page on Assisted Living Magazine, including photos, services, and contact info.
|
CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the federal agency that regulates nursing homes) Overall 5-star rating — a composite of Health Inspection, Staffing, and Quality Measures scores. 5 stars = top 10% nationally. 1 star = bottom 10%. The single most important number to start with when comparing facilities.
|
Care Types in This Table
AL (Assisted Living):
Housing with help for daily activities like bathing, dressing, and medication, without 24-hour skilled nursing.
NH (Nursing Home):
24/7 skilled nursing care for residents with complex, ongoing medical needs.
SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility):
Round-the-clock nursing care, often for recovery after surgery, injury, or illness.
MC (Memory Care):
Secured, specialized care for people living with Alzheimer's or dementia.
RC (Respite Care):
Short-term temporary care that gives family caregivers a break.
IL (Independent Living):
Community living with dining, activities, and transportation for active seniors who need little personal care.
|
Neighborhood or city area where the facility is located. Proximity to family, hospitals, and green space matters for both quality of life and ease of visitation. Consider drive time and transit access when evaluating location.
|
Licensed bed capacity. Larger facilities (300+ beds) often have more specialized programs but can feel institutional. Smaller homes (under 150 beds) tend to deliver more personalized care. Compare with Avg Res/Day to understand how full the facility typically runs.
|
Percentage of licensed beds filled on an average day. Color indicates financial health: green (90%+) = operationally strong, typically profitable. Amber (80–89%) = stable but leaving revenue on the table. Orange (70–79%) = financial strain likely, may struggle with fixed costs. Red (<70%) = significant distress, closure or ownership change risk increases sharply.
|
This facility's occupancy rate compared to the statewide average for similar facilities. A positive number means above-average demand. Facilities running 5%+ above the state average are typically the most sought-after in their market — a strong proxy for reputation.
|
CMS-adjusted total nurse hours per resident per day (RN + LPN + CNA combined). The national average is approximately 3.5 hrs. Higher is better — more direct care time per resident. Below 3.0 is a red flag. CMS weights RN hours more heavily because RNs handle complex clinical decisions that CNAs cannot.
|
CMS Health Inspection star rating (1–5 stars), based on the 3 most recent annual state surveys plus any complaint investigations. This is the hardest rating to manipulate — it reflects real surveyor findings on-site. 5 stars = fewest deficiencies found. 1 star = most. It carries the heaviest weight in the Overall CMS rating.
|
CMS Staffing star rating (1–5 stars), based on daily nurse staffing hours submitted to CMS via verified payroll data. Compares RN, LPN, and CNA coverage relative to resident acuity level. 5 stars = well above expected staffing. Weekend staffing is evaluated separately, as that's where many facilities quietly reduce coverage.
|
CMS Quality Measures star rating (1–5 stars), based on 15 clinical outcome metrics including fall rates, pressure ulcers, antipsychotic drug use, and hospital readmissions. Captures actual resident health outcomes, not just compliance. High QM combined with low Health Inspection scores can indicate a facility with strong care but weak documentation practices.
|
Registered Nurse hours per resident/day compared to the statewide average. RNs are the highest-skilled nursing staff — they assess residents, manage medications, and respond to emergencies. A value of +50% means RN coverage is 50% above the state norm. Negative values are a concern for residents with complex or acute medical needs.
|
Total nursing staff hours (RN + LPN + CNA combined) per resident/day vs. the statewide average. A broader measure than RN vs State — it captures the entire care team. A facility can have high total staffing but low RN hours, meaning more aides and fewer nurses. Read both columns together for the full picture.
|
Total dollar amount of federal monetary fines (civil money penalties) issued by CMS in the past 3 years. Fines are only levied for serious violations — typically actual harm to residents, repeated uncorrected deficiencies, or systemic non-compliance. Even a single fine is noteworthy. Multiple fines strongly suggest a pattern, not isolated incidents.
|
Total health deficiency citations from the most recent standard inspection cycle. Minor citations (scope A–C) are common and often administrative in nature. Higher counts aren't always disqualifying, but should be read alongside Severe Citations to understand actual harm levels. Under 10 is strong for a large facility; 30+ warrants a closer look.
|
Average deficiency citations per CMS inspection (survey) in the reporting window — total citations divided by the number of inspections. Lower is better; compare alongside total Citations and Severe Citations for context.
|
Citations at CMS scope/severity level G or higher — G–I means actual harm occurred; J–L means residents were placed in immediate jeopardy. (D–F is potential for harm only). Examples include unaddressed falls, medication errors causing injury, neglect, or abuse.
|
Average number of residents in the building on any given day, derived from annual census data. Reflects true operating scale — a 400-bed facility running 200 residents/day operates very differently from one at 390. Higher resident counts generally mean more funded staffing hours.
|
Better Business Bureau rating (A+ to F). Reflects complaint history, business transparency, and how family disputes were resolved. A+ means no significant unresolved complaints. A blank (—) means the facility isn't BBB-accredited, which is common for healthcare providers and not necessarily a negative signal.
|
Walk Score® (0–100). Measures walkability of the surrounding area. 90–100 = Walker's Paradise. 70–89 = Very Walkable. 50–69 = Somewhat Walkable. Below 50 = Car-Dependent. Higher scores benefit family visitors, resident outings, and staff commuting.
|
The licensed owner or operator of record filed with CMS — the individual or organization legally accountable for the facility. Searching the operator name across other facilities can reveal chain or multi-site ownership, which matters: chain-operated homes tend to have more variable quality outcomes than independently run facilities.
|
What the home actually collects for resident care, after contractual allowances, bad debt and discounts — not gross billings. Taken from the latest complete annual cost report, so it is comparable across homes reporting the same period. Revenue alone doesn't indicate care quality, but it funds staffing and capital reinvestment. Pair with Payroll %. Figures are from each facility's most recent complete fiscal year — hover a value for the exact year; a * marks homes that report an older period than most facilities.
|
Staff salaries plus wage-related benefits from the latest complete annual cost report. Contract and agency labour is counted separately, under other operating costs, so a home leaning on agency staff can show a low figure here. Payroll is the cost most directly tied to care quality — compare with Payroll % for full context. Figures are from each facility's most recent complete fiscal year — hover a value for the exact year; a * marks homes that report an older period than most facilities.
|
Payroll as a share of NET PATIENT REVENUE (not gross revenue). Both figures come from the same cost-report year. A higher figure means more of each revenue dollar goes to staff pay. Read with the Staffing star rating to judge whether spend translates into coverage — and note that homes whose patient revenue covers only part of their operation can read implausibly high. The Texas average is: 68.8% Figures are from each facility's most recent complete fiscal year — hover a value for the exact year; a * marks homes that report an older period than most facilities.
|
CMS Certification Number: the unique federal identifier for this skilled nursing provider.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texhoma Christian Care Center for Alzheimer‘s and Dementia | NH IL MC RC SNF | Wichita Falls | 234
Facility
234
TX AVG
121
Rank
#3 / 258 |
69.3%
Facility
69.3%
TX AVG
72.9%
Rank
#111 / 178 | -5% | 4.60
Facility
4.60
TX AVG
3.47
Rank
#31 / 233 | -37% | +32% | $0
Facility
$0
TX AVG
$63.8k
Rank
#1 / 236 | 9
Facility
9
TX AVG
28.0
Rank
#19 / 234 | 3.0
Facility
3.0
TX AVG
3.6
Rank
#87 / 234 | - | 162 | - |
8
Facility
8
TX AVG
44
Rank
#262 / 276 | Texhoma Christian Care Center Inc | $17.2MFiscal year ending 02/2025
Facility
$17.2MFiscal year ending 02/2025
TX AVG
$10.2M
Rank
#17 / 225 | $10.9MFiscal year ending 02/2025
Facility
$10.9MFiscal year ending 02/2025
TX AVG
$5.8M
Rank
#20 / 225 | 63.2%Fiscal year ending 02/2025
Facility
63.2%Fiscal year ending 02/2025
TX AVG
68.8%
Rank
#60 / 202 | 455965 | ||||
| University Park Nursing & Rehabilitation | NH SNF | Wichita Falls | 98
Facility
98
TX AVG
121
Rank
#202 / 258 |
94.2%
Facility
94.2%
TX AVG
72.9%
Rank
#8 / 178 | +29% | 2.59
Facility
2.59
TX AVG
3.47
Rank
#228 / 233 | +21% | -25% | $0
Facility
$0
TX AVG
$63.8k
Rank
#1 / 236 | 16
Facility
16
TX AVG
28.0
Rank
#105 / 234 | 3.2
Facility
3.2
TX AVG
3.6
Rank
#209 / 234 | - | 92 | - |
40
Facility
40
TX AVG
44
Rank
#162 / 276 | West Wharton County Hospital District | $7.8MFiscal year ending 03/2025
Facility
$7.8MFiscal year ending 03/2025
TX AVG
$10.2M
Rank
#146 / 225 | $4.5MFiscal year ending 03/2025
Facility
$4.5MFiscal year ending 03/2025
TX AVG
$5.8M
Rank
#136 / 225 | 57.5%Fiscal year ending 03/2025
Facility
57.5%Fiscal year ending 03/2025
TX AVG
68.8%
Rank
#102 / 202 | 455916 | ||||
| Senior Care Health & Rehabilitation | NH SNF | Wichita Falls | 144
Facility
144
TX AVG
121
Rank
#60 / 258 |
88.9%
Facility
88.9%
TX AVG
72.9%
Rank
#30 / 178 | +22% | 2.92
Facility
2.92
TX AVG
3.47
Rank
#194 / 233 | -25% | -16% | $0
Facility
$0
TX AVG
$63.8k
Rank
#1 / 236 | 8
Facility
8
TX AVG
28.0
Rank
#12 / 234 | 2.0
Facility
2.0
TX AVG
3.6
Rank
#21 / 234 | - | 128 | - |
23
Facility
23
TX AVG
44
Rank
#227 / 276 | Nocona Hospital District | $17.7MFiscal year ending 08/2025
Facility
$17.7MFiscal year ending 08/2025
TX AVG
$10.2M
Rank
#16 / 225 | $7.3MFiscal year ending 08/2025
Facility
$7.3MFiscal year ending 08/2025
TX AVG
$5.8M
Rank
#45 / 225 | 41.4%Fiscal year ending 08/2025
Facility
41.4%Fiscal year ending 08/2025
TX AVG
68.8%
Rank
#177 / 202 | 676144 | ||||
| Nexion Midwestern Healthcare Center | NH SNF | Wichita Falls | 121
Facility
121
TX AVG
121
Rank
#122 / 258 |
67.3%
Facility
67.3%
TX AVG
72.9%
Rank
#123 / 178 | -8% | 3.18
Facility
3.18
TX AVG
3.47
Rank
#145 / 233 | +4% | -8% | $29.9k
Facility
$29.9k
TX AVG
$63.8k
Rank
#141 / 236 | 23
Facility
23
TX AVG
28.0
Rank
#105 / 234 | 3.8
Facility
3.8
TX AVG
3.6
Rank
#172 / 234 | 3 | 81 | - |
6
Facility
6
TX AVG
44
Rank
#269 / 276 | Decatur Hospital Authority | $5.7MFiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
$5.7MFiscal year ending 12/2024
TX AVG
$10.2M
Rank
#196 / 225 | $3.4MFiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
$3.4MFiscal year ending 12/2024
TX AVG
$5.8M
Rank
#180 / 225 | 59.5%Fiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
59.5%Fiscal year ending 12/2024
TX AVG
68.8%
Rank
#83 / 202 | 675128 | ||||
| The Pines at Rolling Meadows | - | NH AL IL MC SNF | Wichita Falls | 86
Facility
86
TX AVG
121
Rank
#210 / 258 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
50
Facility
50
TX AVG
44
Rank
#111 / 276 | Wichita Falls Retirement Foundation | $9.1MFiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
$9.1MFiscal year ending 12/2024
TX AVG
$10.2M
Rank
#118 / 225 | $4.9MFiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
$4.9MFiscal year ending 12/2024
TX AVG
$5.8M
Rank
#116 / 225 | 53.7%Fiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
53.7%Fiscal year ending 12/2024
TX AVG
68.8%
Rank
#128 / 202 | 676203 |
Rank badges are statewide and care-type specific: each nursing home is ranked against every other TX nursing home we track that reports that metric, not just the 5 on this page. See how we rank facilities
Financial Assistance for
Nursing Home in Texas
The Pines at Rolling Meadows is located in Wichita Falls, Texas.
Here are the financial assistance programs available to residents in Texas.




