Assisted Living
Vitality Living of Remer
105 Spruce Street Nw, Remer, MN 56672 · Map
Licensed for 20 residents · VITALITY LIVING OF REMER LLC
Vitality Living of Remer is a state-licensed assisted living community in Remer, Minnesota. It is licensed for 20 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, 20 residents
Assisted Living Facility 421899, current license dated Aug 1, 2025. Licensee VITALITY LIVING OF REMER LLC.
Nearest emergency room
20.4 miles
Grand Itasca Clinic And Hospital, rated 4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality Living of Remer this community | 20 | Not published | Active | 1 substantiated | |
| Americare Lodges | 1.7 mi | 10 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Sugar Brook Villa | 15.5 mi | 12 | Not published | Active | 0 substantiated |
| Maple Woods Assisted Living | 16.0 mi | 30 | Not published | Active | 5 substantiated |
| Majestic Pines | 20.4 mi | 101 | Not published | Active | 2 substantiated |
State inspection record1 substantiated
- Last evaluation
- December 11, 2025
- Evaluations on record
- 2
- Investigations substantiated
- 1 kept 7 years
- Inconclusive
- 0 kept 4 years
- Unsubstantiated
- 2 kept 3 years
Most recent evaluation (December 11, 2025, state report 0JQN11)
MDH: “On December 8, 2025, through December 11, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health conducted a change of ownership (CHOW) survey at the above provider.”
Survey completed December 11, 2025: 3 correction orders
- Tag 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program 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 services were provided according to accepted health care, medical, or nursing standards in regard to infection control during resident cares for one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E. This had the potential to affect all residents of the licensee.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure services were provided according to accepted health care, medical, or nursing standards in regard to infection control during resident cares for one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E. This had the potential to affect all residents of the licensee. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must establish and maintain an infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control. [...]”
- Tag 1470: 144G.63 Subd. 2 Content of required orientation Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide staff orientation to assisted living requirements and regulations for one of two employees (maintenance (M)-D).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide staff orientation to assisted living requirements and regulations for one of two employees (maintenance (M)-D). This had the potential to affect all residents of the licensee. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The orientation must contain the following topics: (1) an overview of this chapter; (2) an introduction and review of the facility's policies and procedures related to the provision of assisted living services by the individual staff person; (3) handling [...]”
- Tag 1550: 144G.64 (a) (4) Training in Dementia, Mental Illness, and De- Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide staff orientation to assisted living requirements and regulations for one of two employees (maintenance (M)-D).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide staff orientation to assisted living requirements and regulations for one of two employees (maintenance (M)-D). This had the potential to affect all residents of the licensee. [...]”
Rule cited: “(4) staff who do not provide direct care, including maintenance, housekeeping, and food service staff, must have at least four hours of initial training on topics specified under paragraph (b), clauses (1) to (5), and two hours of initial training on mental [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
Food and beverage inspection (included in this report): No orders were issued for this inspection report.
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 510 (144g.41 Subd. 3 - Infection Control Program): $500.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $500.00.
Earlier evaluations (1)
- July 9, 2024: report FV5N11 · 10 correction orders
Details
Survey completed July 9, 2024: 10 correction orders
- Tag 450: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide services in a person-centered manner for one of two residents (R3) during personal cares.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to provide services in a person-centered manner for one of two residents (R3) during personal cares. [...]”
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 510: 144G.41 Subd. 3 Infection control program 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 infection control standards were followed by one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B while providing wound care for R2.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure infection control standards were followed by one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP)-B while providing wound care for R2. In addition, one of one ULP (ULP-G) failed to ensure reusable equipment was cleaned in-between resident use during personal cares. [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must establish and maintain an infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control. [...]”
- Tag 650: 144G.42 Subd. 8 Employee records Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Twenty-one (21) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure employee records contained required content for one of one employee, (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employee records contained required content for one of one employee, (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E). [...]”
Rule cited: “(a) The facility must maintain current records of each paid employee, each regularly scheduled volunteer providing services, and each individual contractor providing services. [...]”
- Tag 800: 144G.45 Subd. 2 (a) (4) 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 maintain the facility's physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation regarding the health, safety, and well-being of the residents.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain the facility's physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation regarding the health, safety, and well-being of the residents. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, 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 [...]”
- 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, make the plan readily available, provide required training and drills.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop the fire safety and evacuation plan with required content, make the plan readily available, provide 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. [...]”
Show all 10
- Tag 1740: 144G.71 Subd. 6 Administration of medication Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Two (2) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure unlicensed personnel (ULP) were trained and competency tested prior to a registered nurse (RN) delegating medication administration to one of two employees (ULP-G).
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure unlicensed personnel (ULP) were trained and competency tested prior to a registered nurse (RN) delegating medication administration to one of two employees (ULP-G). [...]”
Rule cited: “Medications may be administered by a nurse, physician, or other licensed health practitioner authorized to administer medications or by unlicensed personnel who have been delegated medication administration tasks by a registered nurse.”
- Tag 1750: 144G.71 Subd. 7 Delegation of medication administration Level 2, widespread scope, scope/level letter F · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) prepared in writing specific instructions for each resident and documented those instructions in the record for one of one resident (R3) with injectable medication.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) prepared in writing specific instructions for each resident and documented those instructions in the record for one of one resident (R3) with injectable medication. [...]”
Rule cited: “When administration of medications is delegated to unlicensed personnel, the assisted living facility must ensure that the registered nurse has: (1) instructed the unlicensed personnel in the proper methods to administer the medications, and the unlicensed [...]”
- Tag 1760: 144G.71 Subd. 8 Documentation of administration of medication Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review the licensee failed to ensure the steps of the medication administration process was followed for one of two employees, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G. [...]”
Rule cited: “Each medication administered by the assisted living facility staff must be documented in the resident's record. The documentation must include the signature and title of the person who administered the medication. [...]”
- 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 required content for two of two residents (R2, R3) who had treatments managed by the facility.
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 required content for two of two residents (R2, R3) who had treatments managed by the facility. [...]”
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 1950: 144G.72 Subd. 4 Administration of treatments and therapy Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure instructions, specified in writing for each resident, and documented those instructions in the resident's record for one of two residents (R2) receiving treatments.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure instructions, specified in writing for each resident, and documented those instructions in the resident's record for one of two residents (R2) receiving treatments. [...]”
Rule cited: “Ordered or prescribed treatments or therapies must be administered by a nurse, physician, or other licensed health professional authorized to perform the treatment or therapy, or may be delegated or assigned to unlicensed personnel by the licensed health [...]”
From MDH’s letter: the letter says the facility is in substantial compliance.
Fines assessed by MDH
- Tag 510 (144g.41 Subd. 3 - Infection Control Program): $500.00
Total fines assessed, as printed in the letter: $500.00.
- Tag 450: 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Minimum requirements Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Substantiated investigations (state reports)
- April 23, 2024 · report HL324952260M · MDH finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected Resident #1 and Resident #2 when, due to a lack of supervision, Resident #1 assaulted Resident #2 after pulling him out of bed. The assault resulted in Resident #2 being transported to the hospital.”
“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. Resident #1 and Resident #2 had a prior resident-to-resident altercation and the facility failed to implement person centered interventions to prevent further incidents. Approximately three weeks later, the two residents had another altercation after Resident #2 wandered into Resident #1's room. Resident #1 assaulted Resident #2, resulting in Resident #2 being hospitalized.”
Action taken by facility: “Resident #1 was moved to a different facility.”
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 March 6, 2024: 3 correction orders
- Tag 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 4, isolated scope, scope/level letter J · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to assess and develop individualized interventions to ensure safety and prevent harm to others for two of two residents (R1, R2) after a resident-to-resident altercation occurred.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to assess and develop individualized interventions to ensure safety and prevent harm to others for two of two residents (R1, R2) after a resident-to-resident altercation occurred. Three weeks after R1 and R2 had a resident-to-resident altercation, another one occurred. R1 assaulted R2, resulting in R2 being hospitalized. R2 died ten days later. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”
- Tag 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) Appropriate care and services Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services in accordance with the service plan, when staff failed to administer medications as ordered, resulting in medication error for one of one resident (R3) reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide care and services in accordance with the service plan, when staff failed to administer medications as ordered, resulting in medication error for one of one resident (R3) reviewed. The registered nurse (RN) failed to discontinue an order for an opioid narcotic, Percocet, and continued giving the medication for 24 days until the resident was hospitalized for a change in condition. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Residents have the right to receive health care and other assisted living services with continuity from people who are properly trained and competent to perform their duties and in sufficient numbers to adequately provide the services agreed to in the [...]”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) were free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) were 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 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 4, isolated scope, scope/level letter J · correction period: Seven (7) days
Unsubstantiated investigations (2)
- April 7, 2025 · report HL324959441C
Details
Survey completed March 25, 2025: no correction orders issued.
- April 23, 2024 · report HL324959865M · MDH finding: Not Substantiated
Details
Allegation, as written: “The facility neglected the resident when the registered nurse (RN) failed to assess a change in condition, resulting in a delay of care. Facility staff reported the resident began showing a decline of consciousness for five days before he was sent to the hospital for further evaluation. The resident was diagnosed with a cerebral hemorrhage and was also noted to have widespread bruising.”
“The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated.”
Summary: MDH looked into an allegation and found: neglect not substantiated.
MDH’s conclusion, as written: “The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated. The resident fell and hit his head eight days before he was hospitalized. Neurological assessments and additional follow-up monitoring checks were within normal limits and the provider was updated. Six days after falling, the resident was started on a new pain medication, Xtampza. Side effects of the Xtampza (opioid medication) included extreme dizziness, weakness, shallow breathing, and sleepiness. After being on the medication for two days, the resident began to experience side effects including altered mental status. Facility staff notified the resident's provider when symptoms were noted. The medication was discontinued, and staff were advised to closely monitor the resident. [...]”
Action taken by facility: “No action taken.”
Action taken by MDH: “The facility was found to be in noncompliance.”
Survey completed March 6, 2024: 3 correction orders
- Tag 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 4, isolated scope, scope/level letter J · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to assess and develop individualized interventions to ensure safety and prevent harm to others for two of two residents (R1, R2) after a resident-to-resident altercation occurred.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to assess and develop individualized interventions to ensure safety and prevent harm to others for two of two residents (R1, R2) after a resident-to-resident altercation occurred. Three weeks after R1 and R2 had a resident-to-resident altercation, another one occurred. R1 assaulted R2, resulting in R2 being hospitalized. R2 died ten days later. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”
- Tag 2320: 144G.91 Subd. 4 (b) Appropriate care and services Level 2, isolated scope, scope/level letter D · correction period: Seven (7) days
Details
Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services in accordance with the service plan, when staff failed to administer medications as ordered, resulting in medication error for one of one resident (R3) reviewed.
MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide care and services in accordance with the service plan, when staff failed to administer medications as ordered, resulting in medication error for one of one resident (R3) reviewed. The registered nurse (RN) failed to discontinue an order for an opioid narcotic, Percocet, and continued giving the medication for 24 days until the resident was hospitalized for a change in condition. [...]”
Rule cited: “(b) Residents have the right to receive health care and other assisted living services with continuity from people who are properly trained and competent to perform their duties and in sufficient numbers to adequately provide the services agreed to in the [...]”
- Tag 2360: 144G.91 Subd. 8 Freedom from maltreatment
Details
Summary: MDH found the facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) were free from maltreatment.
MDH’s finding, as written: “The facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed (R1, R2) were 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 630: 144G.42 Subd. 6 (b) Compliance with requirements for reporting ma Level 4, isolated scope, scope/level letter J · correction period: Seven (7) days
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”
Level 4: “a violation harmed a resident's health or safety, not including serious injury or death, or a violation that was likely to lead to serious injury 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 20 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 VITALITY LIVING OF REMER LLC
- License type
- Assisted Living Facility
- License number
- 421899
- License status
- Active
- Current license dated
- 2025-08-01
- Licensed capacity
- 20
- Licensee
- VITALITY LIVING OF REMER LLC
- County
- Cass County
- Administrator/Authorized Agent
- Tyler Hoemberg
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 20.4 mi, nursing home 20.5 mi, pharmacy 21.5 mi
- Nearest hospital with an emergency room
- Grand Itasca Clinic And Hospital, Grand Rapids. 20.4 miles away, straight line. CMS overall hospital rating: 4 of 5 stars.
- Nearest Medicare nursing home
- Essentia Health Homestead, Deer River. 20.5 miles away, straight line.
- Nearest home health agency office
- Essentia Health Deer River Home Care, Deer River. 20.5 miles away, straight line. Agencies travel to clients, so ask which ones serve this address.
- Nearest pharmacy
- Walgreens. 21.5 miles away, straight line. From OpenStreetMap, which does not list every pharmacy, so one may be closer.
- Area
- USDA classes ZIP code 56672 as rural (rural area).
- Hospice
- 7 Medicare hospices tell CMS they serve ZIP code 56672.
St Croix Hospice, office in Grand Rapids, 21.5 miles away, straight line (CMS family survey rating 4 of 5 stars) - Nearest geriatric medicine practice
- Polinsky Medical Rehabilitation Center, Duluth. 81.5 miles away, straight line. 3 geriatric medicine doctors 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
- FEMA has a flood map for this community (effective July 11, 1975), but it is not in FEMA's digital flood map data, so the zone at this address could not be read. FEMA's Map Service Center has the map. (FEMA flood map)
- FEMA National Risk Index
- Overall: relatively low. By hazard: inland flooding relatively moderate, wildfire relatively low, tornado relatively low, heat wave relatively low, 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 current license dates from 2025. 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?
- Is the apartment held during a hospital stay, and at what cost?
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: 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 |
| The community’s own website | No plain statements of services found |
Common questionsAnswers to 4 questions families ask
What type of care does Vitality Living of Remer provide?
Vitality Living of Remer is licensed by the state of Minnesota for assisted living in Remer, Minnesota. Its licensed capacity is 20 residents.
Does Lilisity rate Vitality Living of Remer?
No. We publish state licensing details for Vitality Living of Remer 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 Vitality Living of Remer 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. Vitality Living of Remer does not publish its prices.
How do I contact Vitality Living of Remer?
Use Vitality Living of Remer's website, vitalityhm.com, or visit at 105 Spruce Street Nw, Remer, MN 56672.
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