Assisted Living and Memory Care
Suite Living Senior Care of Ra
7007 139th Lane Nw, Ramsey, MN 55303 · Map
Licensed for 32 residents · SUITE LIVING SENIOR CARE OF RAMSEY
Suite Living Senior Care of Ra is a state-licensed assisted living, memory care community in Ramsey, Minnesota. It is licensed for 32 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
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, 32 residents
Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care 425725, current license dated Jul 1, 2026. Licensee SUITE LIVING SENIOR CARE OF RAMSEY.
Nearest emergency room
4.4 miles
Mercy Hospital, rated 3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suite Living Senior Care of Ra this community | 32 | Not published | Active | 3 substantiated | |
| C&C Happiness and Health | 1.6 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | No record |
| Bari Care Homes | 1.7 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Stoney River Ramsey | 2.2 mi | 80 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated |
| Gifted Home Health Care | 2.2 mi | 5 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
State inspection record3 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- February 26, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 3 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 0 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (February 26, 2025, state report D4Q011)
MDH: “On February 24, 2025, through February 26, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a full survey at the above provider.”
Survey completed February 26, 2025: 8 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 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 visitors, employees, and residents. [...]”
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 775: 144G.45 Subd. 2. (a) Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to comply with the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code Rules, Chapter 7511.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to comply with the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code Rules, Chapter 7511. 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) and was issued at a 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 [...]”
Rule cited: “Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and:”
- 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
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop the fire safety and evacuation plan with required content and provide required drills.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, record review, and interview, the licensee failed to develop the fire safety and evacuation plan with required content and provide required 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 1290: 144G.60 Subdivision 1 Background studies required Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Two (2) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a background study was affiliated to the current health facility identification (HFID) number for three of three employees on the facility provided employee roster unlicensed personnel (ULP) F, ULP-G, and ULP-H.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a background study was affiliated to the current health facility identification (HFID) number for three of three employees on the facility provided employee roster unlicensed personnel (ULP) F, ULP-G, and ULP-H. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Employees, contractors, and regularly scheduled volunteers of the facility are subject to the background study required by section 144.057 and may be disqualified under chapter 245C. [...]”
Show all 8
- Tag 1640: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (a-e) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a written service plan was revised to reflect the current services provided for one of one resident (R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a written service plan was revised to reflect the current services provided for one of one resident (R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) No later than 14 calendar days after the date that services are first provided, an assisted living facility shall finalize a current written service plan. [...]”
- Tag 1890: 144G.71 Subd. 20 Prescription drugs Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure time sensitive medications included the opened or expiration date.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure time sensitive medications included the opened or expiration date. 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 or a [...]”
Rule cited: “A prescription drug, prior to being set up for immediate or later administration, must be kept in the original container in which it was dispensed by the pharmacy bearing the original prescription label with legible information including the expiration or [...]”
- Tag 2040: 144G.81 Subdivision 1 Fire protection and physical environment Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a safety risk assessment or hazard vulnerability assessment of the physical environment on and around the property with mitigation factors to protect the dementia care residents from harm.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on record review and interview, the licensee failed to provide a safety risk assessment or hazard vulnerability assessment of the physical environment on and around the property with mitigation factors to protect the dementia care residents from harm. This deficient practice had the ability to affect all dementia care residents. [...]”
Rule cited: “An assisted living facility with dementia care that has a secured dementia care unit must meet the requirements of section 144G.45 and the following additional requirements: (1) a hazard vulnerability assessment or safety risk must be performed on and around [...]”
From MDH’s letter: no immediate fines.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- October 18, 2022: report JVYI11 · 8 correction orders
Details
Survey completed October 18, 2022: 8 correction orders
- Tag 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was developed to include statements of the specific measures to be taken to minimize the risk of abuse for two of three residents (R1, R3).
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 statements of the specific measures to be taken to minimize the risk of abuse for two of three residents (R1, R3). [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”
- Tag 940: 144G.50 Subd. 2 (e; 5-7) Contract information Level 1, widespread scope, scope/level letter C · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with all required content for all the licensee's residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with all required content for all the licensee's residents. This practice resulted in a level one violation (a violation that has no potential to cause more than a minimal impact on the resident and does not affect health or safety), and was issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has potential to affect a large portion or [...]”
Rule cited: “(5) a description of the facility's policies related to medical assistance waivers under chapter 256S and section 256B.49 and the housing support program under chapter 256I, including: (i) whether the facility is enrolled with the commissioner of human [...]”
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conduct ongoing client monitoring and reassessment, not to exceed 14 calendar days after initiation of services for one of three residents (R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conduct ongoing client monitoring and reassessment, not to exceed 14 calendar days after initiation of services for one of three residents (R3). [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
- Tag 1650: 144G.70 Subd. 4 (f) Service plan, implementation and revisions to Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included the required content for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included the required content for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3). 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 a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure [...]”
Rule cited: “(f) The service plan must include: (1) a description of the services to be provided, the fees for services, and the frequency of each service, according to the resident's current assessment and resident preferences; (2) the identification of staff or [...]”
- Tag 1730: 144G.71 Subd. 5 Individualized medication management plan Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management record with the required content for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3)
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management record with the required content for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3) 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 a widespread scope (when problems are [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) For each resident receiving medication management services, the assisted living facility must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the medication management services that will be provided to the resident. [...]”
Show all 8
- Tag 1910: 144G.71 Subd. 22 Disposition of medications Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to document in the resident's record regarding the disposition of medication to include quantity and names of staff and other individuals involved in the disposition of medications for one of one discharged resident (R4).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to document in the resident's record regarding the disposition of medication to include quantity and names of staff and other individuals involved in the disposition of medications for one of one discharged resident (R4). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) Any current medications being managed by the assisted living facility must be provided to the resident when the resident's service plan ends or medication management services are no longer part of the service plan. [...]”
- Tag 1940: 144G.72 Subd. 3 Individualized treatment or therapy managemen Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all the required content for two of two residents (R1, R2). [...]”
Rule cited: “For each resident receiving management of ordered or prescribed treatments or therapy services, the assisted living facility must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the treatment or therapy services that will be provided to the [...]”
- Tag 2110: 144G.82 Subd. 3 Policies Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure policies and procedures for assisted living with dementia care (ALFDC) were provided to residents and/or the residents' legal and designated representatives at the time
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure policies and procedures for assisted living with dementia care (ALFDC) were provided to residents and/or the residents' legal and designated representatives at the time of move in for two of four residents (R1, R3). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) In addition to the policies and procedures required in the licensing of all facilities, the assisted living facility with dementia care licensee must develop and implement policies and procedures that address the: (1) philosophy of how services are [...]”
From MDH’s letter: no immediate fines.
- Tag 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 2, pattern scope, scope/level letter E · correction period: Seven (7) days
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- December 19, 2024 · report HL366015741M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when they failed to thoroughly assess the resident for injuries after the resident sustained a fall. The resident went to the hospital two times after for the same fall, and admitted the second time for broken ribs, a hemothorax (a serious condition that occurs when blood collects in the pleural space, the hollow area between the lungs and rib cage), and blood clots in both legs.”
“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 facility staff failed to assess and monitor the resident for injury post fall despite a skin tear, resident complaints of pain and change in condition. The facility staff failed to communicate changes in the resident's status between unlicensed personnel (ULP) and nurses. The facility failed to coordinate care, ensuring the resident completed an ordered chest x-ray. The resident had significant bruising to her right ribs and experienced pain for seven days after the fall prior to admitting to the hospital with rib fractures, a large hemothorax and bilateral pulmonary emboli (a clot in the lungs). The resident required chest tubes and hospitalized for two weeks.”
Action taken by facility: “Staff notified the RN following the fall. The RN notified the medical provider to obtain x-ray orders. The facility nurses contacted family and coordinated transport of the resident to the ER.”
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 November 12, 2024: 3 correction orders
- Tag 450: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and document review the licensee failed to provide person centered care and services in compliance with the nurse practice act including coordination and communication of changes in care for one of one residents (R1) reviewed. R1 had a fall with right hip and rib pain. [...]”
Rule cited: “All assisted living facilities shall: (1) distribute to residents the assisted living bill of rights; (2) provide services in a manner that complies with the Nurse Practice Act in sections 148.171 to 148.285; (3) utilize a person-centered planning and service [...]”
- Tag 1620: 144G.70 Subd. 2 (c-e) Initial reviews, assessments, and monitoring Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and document review) the licensee failed to conduct a registered nurse (RN) assessment following a fall with injury, change of condition of increased pain, and post emergency room visit assessments, as required for 1 of 1 residents (R1) reviewed. R1 had a fall with right hip and rib pain. [...]”
Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”
- 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 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 450: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 3, isolated scope, scope/level letter G · correction period: Seven (7) days
- March 13, 2023 · report HL366014584M · MDH finding: Substantiated, individual responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The alleged perpetrator (AP), facility staff, abused a resident when she forced the resident to take medications. In addition, the AP restrained the resident to prevent the resident from getting out of bed.”
“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 AP was observed on camera forcing a spoon with medications into the resident's mouth. In addition, the AP was observed on video restraining the resident when she elevated the foot of the resident's bed for approximately 2 hours, preventing the resident from getting out of bed.”
Action taken by facility: “The facility completed re-education of all staff regarding vulnerable adult incidents and dementia care. The AP is no longer employed at the facility.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed February 7, 2023: 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 (R1) reviewed was free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observations, interviews, and document review, the facility failed to ensure one of one resident (R1) reviewed was free from maltreatment. R1 was abused Findings include: On February 7, 2023, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) issued a determination that abuse occurred, and that an individual staff person was responsible for the maltreatment, in connection with incidents which occurred at the facility. [...]”
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
- August 22, 2022 · report HL36601001M
What the levels and scopes mean (MDH’s words)
Level 1: “a violation that has no potential to cause more than a minimal impact on the resident and does not affect health or safety”
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”
Level 3: “a violation that harmed a resident's health or safety, not including serious injury, impairment, or death, or a violation that has the potential to lead to 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 32 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 SUITE LIVING SENIOR CARE OF RAMSEY
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility Dementia Care
- License number
- 425725
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2026-07-01
- Licensed capacity
- 32
- Licensee
- SUITE LIVING SENIOR CARE OF RAMSEY
- County
- Anoka County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Audrey McElwain
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 4.4 mi, nursing home 3.0 mi, pharmacy 1.4 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Mercy Hospital, Coon Rapids. 4.4 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 3 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- The Estates At Twin Rivers LLC, Anoka. 3.0 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Accurate Home Care, Otsego. 6.9 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Coborn's Pharmacy. 1.4 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 55303 as metropolitan (metropolitan core).
- Dialysis within 15 miles
- Fresenius Medical Care - Champlin, Champlin, 4.0 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Davita Mississippi Gateway Dialysis, Coon Rapids, 4.7 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars)
Fmc - Coon Rapids, Coon Rapids, 5.1 miles away, straight line (CMS rating 3 of 5 stars) - Hospice
- 29 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 55303.
Mary T Hospice, office in Coon Rapids, 7.5 miles away, straight line
Triniti Hospice, office in Elk River, 7.9 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars)
Serenity Hospice Homes LLC, office in Brooklyn Park, 9.8 miles away, straight line - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Group Health Inc, Coon Rapids. 7.1 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 high; 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 high. By hazard: inland flooding very high, wildfire 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 work in memory care during the day, the evening and overnight, and for how many residents?
- What dementia training does each caregiver get before working alone, and every year after?
- How do staff respond when a resident is agitated, frightened or tries to leave?
- 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?
What we checked11 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: FEMA rates wildfire risk here relatively low |
| 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 |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Suite Living Senior Care of Ra provide?
Suite Living Senior Care of Ra is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living, memory care in Ramsey, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 32 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Suite Living Senior Care of Ra?
No. We publish state licensing details for Suite Living Senior Care of Ra 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 Suite Living Senior Care of Ra cost?
Assisted Living in Minnesota typically starts at $2,200 to $4,800 a month. Based on 74 communities that publish prices. These are area figures, not this community's price. Suite Living Senior Care of Ra does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Suite Living Senior Care of Ra?
Visit Suite Living Senior Care of Ra at 7007 139th Lane Nw, Ramsey, MN 55303.
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