Assisted Living
Eden Vista of Edina (Assisted Living)
3434 Heritage Drive, Edina, MN 55435 · Map
Licensed for 75 residents · EDEN VISTA OF EDINA.
Eden Vista of Edina (Assisted Living) is a state-licensed assisted living community in Edina, Minnesota. It is licensed for 75 residents. Lilisity publishes no score or ranking for this community; the details below come from the state licensing record.
Prices
This community does not publish its prices.
Area costs
Care and services
From the community’s website
What Eden Vista of Edina (Assisted Living) says about itself, quoted from its own site. We have not checked these claims against licensing records. Ask about each one on a tour.
- Has a separate memory care unit, wing or neighborhood.
Our memory care neighborhood provides a secure and supportive environment designed to help residents feel safe, comfortable, and engaged.
(page, checked Oct 12, 2026)
Lilisity’s independent report
What the public record shows
Gathered by Lilisity from state and federal sources. Communities can’t edit this part of the page.
License
Active, 75 residents
Assisted Living Facility 425394, current license dated May 31, 2026. Licensee EDEN VISTA OF EDINA..
Nearest emergency room
0.4 miles
M Health Fairview Southdale Hospital, rated 5 of 5 stars by CMS.
Side by side with nearby communities
The 4 nearest communities that offer assisted living, by straight-line distance. Prices are starting prices each community publishes; we never show estimates.
| Community | Distance | Licensed capacity | Published starting price | License | Inspection citations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eden Vista of Edina (Assisted Living) this community | 75 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated | |
| Eden Vista of Edina (Assisted Living and Memory Care) | 0.1 mi | 54 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated |
| Applewood Home Health Care, Vincent Avenue South | 0.3 mi | 6 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Clear View Living | 0.4 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | No record |
| Sisters Home Health Care | 0.4 mi | 4 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record2 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- April 10, 2026
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 2 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (April 10, 2026, state report 94HP11)
MDH: “On April 6, 2026, through April 10, 2026, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a change of ownership (CHOW) survey at the above provider.”
Survey completed April 10, 2026: 4 correction orders
- Tag 480: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Subd. 1a (a-b) Minimum requirements; required food services Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Please refer to the FBEIR for any compliance dates
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure food was prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code. This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and is issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626. [...]”
- Tag 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7)
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was developed to include the required content for one of three residents (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was developed to include the required content for one of three residents (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”
- Tag 775: 144G.45 Subd. 2. (a) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days · fine: $500.00 assessed
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and:”
- Tag 790: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (2-3) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G. [...]”
Rule cited: “(2) install and maintain portable fire extinguishers in accordance with the State Fire Code; (3) install portable fire extinguishers having a minimum 2-A:10-B:C rating within Group R-3 occupancies, as defined by the State Fire Code, located so that the travel [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
Food and beverage inspection (included in this report): Food and beverage inspection report included
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 775 (144g.45 Subd. 2. (a) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment): $500.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $500.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- April 4, 2024: report L3UC11 · 8 correction orders
Details
Survey completed April 4, 2024: 8 correction orders
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement a staffing plan to determine staffing levels to meet the needs of all residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement a staffing plan to determine staffing levels to meet the needs of all residents. This had the potential to affect residents residing in the facility, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(11) develop and implement a staffing plan for determining its staffing level that: (i) includes an evaluation, to be conducted at least twice a year, of the appropriateness of staffing levels in the facility; (ii) ensures sufficient staffing at all times to [...]”
- Tag 680: 144G.42 Subd. 10 Disaster planning and emergency preparedness Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness plan (EPP) with all the required content. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff and visitors of the assisted living facility. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The facility must meet the following requirements: (1) have a written emergency disaster plan that contains a plan for evacuation, addresses elements of sheltering in place, identifies temporary relocation sites, and details staff assignments in the event [...]”
- Tag 730: 144G.43 Subd. 3 Contents of resident record Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the resident's record included the required content for two of five residents (R1, R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review and interview, the licensee failed to ensure the resident's record included the required content for two of five residents (R1, R2). This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one [...]”
Rule cited: “Contents of a resident record include the following for each resident: (1) identifying information, including the resident's name, date of birth, address, and telephone number; (2) the name, address, and telephone number of the resident's emergency contact, [...]”
- Tag 780: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (1) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms that functioned and are interconnected so that the actuation of one alarm causes all alarms in the dwelling unit to actuate. This deficient condition had the ability to affect all staff and residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and: (1) for dwellings or sleeping units, as defined in the State Fire Code: (i) provide smoke alarms in each room used for sleeping purposes; (ii) [...]”
- Tag 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to maintain the physical environment, including walls, floors, ceiling, all furnishings, grounds, systems, and equipment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain the physical environment, including walls, floors, ceiling, all furnishings, grounds, systems, and equipment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the residents. This deficient condition had the potential to affect all staff, residents, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(4) keep the physical environment, including walls, floors, ceiling, all furnishings, grounds, systems, and equipment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the residents in accordance [...]”
Show all 8
- Tag 810: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (b)-(f) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop the fire safety and evacuation plan with the required content and provide the required training and drills. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”
- Tag 820: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (g) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the physical facility elements did not constitute a distinct hazard to life.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to ensure the physical facility elements did not constitute a distinct hazard to life. This had the potential to affect all occupied residents, staff, and visitors because timely evacuation would not be possible in the event of a fire or other life-threatening emergencies. [...]”
Rule cited: “(g) Existing construction or elements, including assisted living facilities that were registered as housing with services establishments under chapter 144D prior to August 1, 2021, shall be permitted to continue in use provided such use does not constitute a [...]”
- Tag 1060: 144G.52 Subd. 9 Emergency relocation Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation to the resident, legal representative, or designated representative, and failed to provide the notification to the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) when the resident did not return from the emergency relocation within four days for one of one resident (R6).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation to the resident, legal representative, or designated representative, and failed to provide the notification to the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) when the resident did not return from the emergency relocation within four days for one of one resident (R6). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) A facility may remove a resident from the facility in an emergency if necessary due to a resident's urgent medical needs or an imminent risk the resident poses to the health or safety of another facility resident or facility staff member. [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance; no immediate fines.
- Tag 470: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-One (21) days
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- December 16, 2024 · report HL350177024M · MDH finding: Substantiated, individual responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP) abused the resident when the AP was observed on video swearing and yelling at the resident and hit the resident with an unknown object.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated.”
“The AP was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: abuse substantiated (individual responsibility).
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined abuse was substantiated. The AP was responsible for the maltreatment. The video showed the AP hit the resident with a bag of garbage. The audio from the video heard the AP tell the resident he was a "worthless honkey" and told him he could not "even stand" on his own feet to clean his own "nasty ass." The AP called the resident a "mother fucker."”
Action taken by facility: “The facility reported the incident and completed a thorough internal investigation. The facility assessed the resident and spoke to all staff and residents who worked with the AP. The facility recently provided education on vulnerable adult maltreatment to all staff members.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was issued a correction order regarding the vulnerable adult's right to be free from maltreatment.”
Survey completed November 14, 2024: 1 correction order
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of one resident(s) reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident(s) reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and an individual person was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. Please refer to the public maltreatment report for details.”
Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; neglect; financial exploitation; and all forms of maltreatment covered under the Vulnerable Adults Act.”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
- May 29, 2024 · report HL350171403M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “It is alleged the alleged perpetrator (AP) neglected a resident when the resident did not receive medication according to physician orders. The resident experienced a hypertensive crisis that required hospitalization.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated.”
“The facility was responsible for the maltreatment.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect substantiated (facility responsibility).
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment. The resident ran out of olanzapine (a psychotropic medication) and the medication nurse failed to notify the AP to follow up and order more medication, nor did the nurse attempt to order more of the residents Olanzapine. Although the resident had no Olanzapine, the medication nurse continued to document in the resident's medication administration record the resident was receiving the olanzapine. The resident did not receive Olanzapine for 12 days. The resident had a hypertensive crisis and was hospitalized.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility identified the error, took corrective action, and implemented new measures designed to reduce the risk of further occurrence of this or similar errors. The facility trained staff in the new procedure for medication administration.”
Action taken by MDH: “The responsible party will be notified of their right to appeal the maltreatment finding. The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed April 16, 2024: 1 correction order
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure one of one resident reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure one of one resident reviewed (R1) was free from maltreatment. Findings include: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination maltreatment occurred, and the facility was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. Please refer to the public maltreatment report for details.”
Rule cited: “Residents have the right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; neglect; financial exploitation; and all forms of maltreatment covered under the Vulnerable Adults Act.”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
What the levels and scopes mean (MDH’s words)
Level 2: “a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death”
Isolated scope: “when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one or a limited number of staff are involved, or the situation has occurred only occasionally”
Pattern scope: “when more than a limited number of residents are affected, more than a limited number of staff are involved, or the situation has occurred repeatedly; but is not found to be pervasive”
Widespread scope: “when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the potential to affect a large portion or all of the residents”
Summaries are ours and are marked “Summary”; quoted text is MDH’s own, shortened where marked [...]. Read the full reports at the links above or search every report on MDH’s site.
What these terms mean
MDH: “An evaluation is a process regulated by the division to ensure licensees comply with the laws, rules, and certifications for the type of care and services authorized under their license/certification.”
“An investigation may occur when the division is notified that care and services are not being provided by licensees as required by law. This may include allegations of abuse, neglect, or financial misuse.”
For maltreatment, Minnesota law defines substantiated as “a preponderance of the evidence shows that an act that meets the definition of maltreatment occurred” and inconclusive as “less than a preponderance of evidence to show that maltreatment did or did not occur” (Minn. Stat. 626.5572).
Correction orders, as MDH explains on each state form: “Tag numbers have been assigned to Minnesota State Statutes for Assisted Living Facilities.” “The letter in the left column is used for tracking purposes and reflects the scope and level issued pursuant to 144G.31 subd. 1, 2, and 3.” MDH adds that there is no requirement to submit a plan of correction for violations of Minnesota state statutes.
MDH keeps investigation results for seven years when allegations are substantiated, four years when inconclusive, and three years when unsubstantiated, so the counts cover different periods. This community is licensed for 75 residents; larger communities are evaluated and reported on more often, so read counts with size in mind. Source: Minnesota Department of Health, Health Regulation Division, data as of September 28, 2026. Always visit in person and ask the community about anything listed here.
License and ownershipActive license, licensee EDEN VISTA OF EDINA.
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility
- License number
- 425394
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-05-31
- Licensed capacity
- 75
- Licensee
- EDEN VISTA OF EDINA.
- County
- Hennepin County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Julie Spiers
Source: Minnesota state licensing records (agency listing), retrieved 2026-09-09. Licensing status is a matter of public record; it is not a quality rating.
Administrator/Authorized Agent name from the Minnesota licensing record, as of Sep 9, 2026.
Paying with Medicaid and other programsHow Medicaid pays for care in Minnesota, and other programs
How Medicaid pays for care in Minnesota
- Elderly Waiver (EW), customized living services. Minnesota's Elderly Waiver, part of Medical Assistance (Minnesota Medicaid), can pay for "customized living" services, and a provider of those services must hold an assisted living license (or meet certain exceptions). You must qualify for Medical Assistance and need a nursing-home level of care. (state page)
Ask the community whether it accepts Medicaid.
Location and nearby careNearest hospital 0.4 mi, nursing home 0.1 mi, pharmacy 0.7 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- M Health Fairview Southdale Hospital, Edina. 0.4 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 5 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Edenbrook of Edina, Minneapolis. 0.1 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Almost Family, Edina. 2.2 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- CVS Pharmacy. 0.7 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55435 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Davita Richfield Dialysis, Richfield, 1.8 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 4 of 5 stars)
Fmc - Southtown Dialysis, Bloomington, 2.0 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Fmc Dialysis - South Minneapolis, Minneapolis, 3.2 miles away, straight line (has a shift starting after 5 pm; CMS rating 3 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 23 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55435.
Caretenders Hospice, office in Minneapolis, 2.7 miles away, straight line
Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, office in Saint Louis Park, 3.2 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars)
Brighton Hospice, office in Saint Louis Park, 3.8 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 3 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Hennepin Healthcare System Inc, Richfield. 1.7 miles away, straight line. 1 geriatric medicine doctor listed there.
Distances are straight lines from the community, not driving distance. Hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors come from CMS provider data (CMS, hospital list updated Jul 22, 2026). Star ratings are CMS’s own.
Emergency and natural hazard riskFEMA overall risk relatively low; outside FEMA's high-risk flood areas
Public hazard maps for this location. Ask the community about its emergency plan, its generator and where residents would go in an evacuation.
- Flood zone
- Outside the high and moderate risk flood areas on FEMA's flood map (Zone X, minimal flood hazard, or not studied). (FEMA flood map)
- FEMA National Risk Index
- Overall: relatively low. By hazard: inland flooding relatively low, tornado relatively high, heat wave relatively moderate, earthquake very low. These are FEMA’s ratings for the census tract, compared with tracts nationwide. (FEMA, December 2025)
A flood zone describes the map at this point, not the building's elevation. In an emergency, follow the local emergency management agency.
Questions to ask on a tour10 questions picked for this community from its record
Picked for this community from its record. Ask them in person and write down the answers.
- The state recorded a finding in December 2024. What was it, and how was it fixed?
- The current license dates from 2026. Has the owner or operator changed recently?
- What does the base rate include, and when did rates last go up?
- How many caregivers are on duty during the day and at night?
- What happens if care needs increase? When would someone need to move?
- What fees are charged at move-in?
- How do you tell families about falls, illness or changes?
- How long have the executive director and the head of care been here?
- Who gives medications, and what training do they have?
- For what reasons can a resident be asked to leave?
What we checked12 public sources we searched, with dates
Every public source we searched for this community. “Nothing on record” means we found no record that matched it. A record can be missed when a name or address differs.
| Source | Data as of | What we found |
|---|---|---|
| Minnesota Department of Health, Health Regulation Division inspection records | Sep 28, 2026 | See above |
| U.S. Department of Labor wage and hour cases | Oct 15, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| OSHA workplace safety inspections since 2016 | Oct 15, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| FEMA flood map | See above | |
| USDA wildfire risk | Apr 15, 2026 | Not shown: no FEMA wildfire rating of moderate or higher here |
| FEMA National Risk Index | See above | |
| CMS hospitals, home health, dialysis, hospice and doctors; OpenStreetMap pharmacies | See above | |
| HUD Multifamily Properties - Assisted | Jul 6, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| State Veterans Homes (NASVH directory) | Sep 20, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Hospice - General Information | Aug 19, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| CMS Home Health Care Agencies | May 27, 2026 | Nothing on record |
| The community’s own website | See above |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Eden Vista of Edina (Assisted Living) provide?
Eden Vista of Edina (Assisted Living) is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living in Edina, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 75 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Eden Vista of Edina (Assisted Living)?
No. We publish state licensing details for Eden Vista of Edina (Assisted Living) but no score, rating, or ranking. Only communities on the Top Communities list or with a Senior Living Alliance Excellence Award, both based on phone-verified resident and family interviews, are ranked.
How much does Eden Vista of Edina (Assisted Living) cost?
Assisted Living in Hennepin County typically starts at $2,500 to $4,400 a month. Based on 18 communities that publish prices. These are area figures, not this community's price. Eden Vista of Edina (Assisted Living) does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Eden Vista of Edina (Assisted Living)?
Use Eden Vista of Edina (Assisted Living)'s website, edenvistaedina.com, or visit at 3434 Heritage Drive, Edina, MN 55435.
How Lilisity works. The only scores or rankings Lilisity publishes are the Top Communities list and the Excellence Awards, both built from phone-verified resident and family interviews. Communities can pay Lilisity a flat monthly fee to manage their own listing: photos, prices, contact details, and receiving the inquiries families choose to send them. The fee is the same no matter how many families contact them or move in. Senior Living Alliance, which runs Lilisity, offers the same listing to its member communities as part of their membership; members pay SLA for its resident and family interview program. No community pays Lilisity per inquiry, per referral or per move-in. Payment never changes a testimonial, a rating, or the order of search results. The "Nearby Senior Living Alliance communities" box shows member communities only. How we verify testimonials · How we are paid