The following analysis examines occupancy and year-over-year changes in inventory, and same-store asking rent growth—by care segment—within not-for-profit CCRCs and for-profit CCRCs in the 99 combined NIC MAP Primary and Secondary Markets. The analysis also explores occupancy by payment type (entrance fee CCRCs vs. rental CCRCs) as well as regional occupancy rates by profit status (not-for-profit CCRCs vs. for-profit CCRCs) during the fourth quarter of 2022.   

NIC MAP^®, powered by NIC MAP Vision, collects primary data on occupancy, asking rents, demand, inventory, and construction for more than 16,000 independent living, assisted living, memory care, skilled nursing, and continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs—also referred to as life plan communities) across 140 U.S. metropolitan markets. The dataset includes 1,160 not-for-profit and for-profit entrance fee and rental CCRCs in these 140 combined markets, including 1,084 in the 99 combined Primary and Secondary Markets.  

CCRCs Outperform Non-CCRCs in Occupancy Rates, Maintaining Consistently High Levels. 

The exhibit below shows that CCRC occupancy increased to 87.2% in the fourth quarter of 2022 for the 99 NIC MAP Primary and Secondary Markets aggregate, up 0.6 percentage points (pps) from the prior quarter. From its pandemic-record low, CCRC occupancy increased by 3.1pps but remained 4.3pps below its pre-pandemic level of 91.5% in the first quarter of 2020. 

In comparison to CCRCs, occupancy for non-CCRCs stood at 80.9% in the fourth quarter of 2022, 6.3pps below that of CCRCs. Notably, during the height of the pandemic, non-CCRCs experienced a larger decline in occupancy rates. Specifically, the decline in occupancy rates for non-CCRCs (11.3pps) was nearly 4.0pps more than that of CCRCs (7.4pps). 

The recently released COVID-19 study conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago, through a grant from NIC, found that CCRC residents were significantly safer from dying of COVID-19 than older adults living in skilled nursing properties and both non-CCRCs and non-congregate residential housing in the community at large. 

By Profit Status – Occupancy for Not-For-Profit CCRCs Continued to Outpace That of For-Profit CCRCs.  

Among the 1,084 CCRCs spread across the 99 Primary and Secondary Markets tracked by NIC MAP Vision, approximately 75% are operated as not-for-profit, and 25% are operated as for-profit.   

In the fourth quarter of 2022, not-for-profit CCRC occupancy (88.2%) was 3.9pps higher than for-profit CCRCs (84.3%). Compared with the first quarter of 2020, not-for-profit CCRCs were 4.4pps lower, while for-profit CCRCs remained 4.1pps below pre-pandemic occupancy levels.   

Notably, for-profit CCRCs are recovering relatively quickly from their pandemic record low but experienced the largest occupancy drop at the peak of the pandemic. On the other hand, not-for-profit CCRCs had relatively smaller occupancy declines and maintained higher occupancy rates. 

By Payment Type – Occupancy for Entrance Fee CCRCs Continued to Outpace That of Rental CCRCs.  

Among the 1,084 CCRCs spread across the 99 Primary and Secondary Markets tracked by NIC MAP Vision, 64% are operated as entrance fee, and 36% are operated as rentals.   

In the fourth quarter 2022, entrance fee CCRC occupancy (89.2%) was 5.4 percentage points higher than rental CCRCs (83.8%). Rental CCRCs are currently 5.2 percentage points below their pre-pandemic occupancy levels, while entrance fee CCRCs are 3.8 percentage points lower. Similar to the pattern based on profit status, rental CCRCs saw steeper drops in occupancy rates, but are rebounding more quickly – compared with entrance fee CCRCs. 

A consistent pattern emerges from all these comparisons – CCRCs vs. non-CCRCs, not-for-profit CCRCs vs. for-profit CCRCs, and entrance fee CCRCs vs. rental CCRCs – properties where demand and occupancy contracted more severely during the height of the pandemic are rebounding more quickly. Interestingly, one of the findings from recently released research by NIC Analytics, exploring the interplay between inflation, in-place rate growth, demand, and occupancy in senior housing, was that the lowest occupied properties/segments were able to generate new demand and grow occupancy faster, but this occurred largely because of lower in-place rates and minimal or even negative rate growth. The fact that these properties/segments had minimal/negative rate growth also suggests that their demand and occupancy may have contracted more severely during the height of the pandemic, and to accelerate the recovery of occupancy, one potential option was likely to lower rates in an attempt to buy occupancy.  

By Region – Not-for-Profit and Entrance Fee CCRCs Outperform For-Profit and Rental CCRCs Across All Regions 

Regional Occupancy Rates – By Profit Status 

The exhibit below shows that in the fourth quarter of 2022, not-for-profit CCRCs had higher occupancy rates than for-profit CCRCs across all regions except in the Pacific. The largest differences in fourth quarter occupancy between not-for-profit CCRCs and for-profit CCRCs were in the Southwest (6.4pps), followed by the West North Central (5.8pps), then the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast (4.8pps and 4.7pps, respectively).  

Not-For-Profit CCRCs. The Mid-Atlantic (91.1%), Northeast (90.6%), and Pacific (88.2%) regions had the strongest occupancy rates in the fourth quarter of 2022. The Southeast region had the lowest occupancy at 85.3%.   

For-Profit CCRCs. The Pacific (90.8%), Mid-Atlantic (86.3%), and Northeast (85.9%) regions had the strongest occupancy rates in the fourth quarter of 2022. The Southwest and West North Central regions had the lowest occupancy at 80.2%.  

Regional Occupancy Rates – By Payment Type

In the fourth quarter of 2022, entrance fee CCRCs had higher occupancy rates than rental CCRCs across all regions. The most significant difference between entrance fee and rental occupancy was reported for the Southeast region, where entrance fee CCRC occupancy was 7.6pps higher than rental, followed by the West North Central (6.2pps), and the Mountain (5.3pps). 

Entrance Fee CCRCs. The Northeast, Pacific, and Mid-Atlantic regions had the strongest entrance fee CCRC occupancy rates – all above 90%. The smallest CCRC occupancy was in the Southwest region at 86.1%.  

Rental CCRCs. The Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, and Pacific regions had the highest occupancy rates, ranging from 86.1% to 87.8%, whereas the Southeast region had the lowest occupancy rate of 79.8%, the only region with an average occupancy rate below 80%. 

4Q 2022 Not-For-Profit vs. For-Profit CCRCs – Market Fundamentals by Care Segment 

The exhibit below illustrates the relative market performance of not-for-profit CCRCs compared with for-profit CCRCs by care segment in the fourth quarter of 2022 and includes year-over-year changes in occupancy, inventory, and asking rent growth.  

Occupancy. Overall, the occupancy rate for not-for-profit CCRCs continued to outpace that of for-profit CCRCs across all care segments. The difference in fourth quarter occupancy rates between not-for-profit CCRCs and for profit CCRCs was largest for the assisted living segment (4.5pps), and smallest for the nursing care segment (1.7pps).   

The not-for-profit CCRC independent living care segment had the highest occupancy (90.8%) in the fourth quarter of 2022, followed by not-for-profit CCRC assisted living and memory care segments (87.5% and 86.5%, respectively). Although in terms of occupancy improvements from one year ago, the independent living segment had the smallest gain across all care segments for both not-for-profit CCRCs and for-profit CCRCs. The largest occupancy gains from one year ago were seen across all care segments within for-profit CCRCs. 

Asking Rent. The monthly average asking rent for not-for-profit CCRCs across all care segments remained higher than for-profit CCRCs except in the independent living care segment. The highest year-over-year asking rent growth for both not-for-profit and for-profit CCRCs was noted in the independent living segment (4.2% and 4.5%, respectively). 

Note, these figures are for asking rates and do not consider any discounting that may be occurring. Learn more about actual in-place rates, i.e., the effective rates or the rates that are “actually being paid” to live in senior housing.

Inventory. From year-earlier levels, inventory across for-profit CCRCs decreased (or shifted) across all care segments, while not-for-profit CCRCs saw increased/relatively stable inventory in all but nursing care. Nursing care inventory for both for-profit and not-for-profit CCRCs experienced the largest declines from year-earlier levels (negative 5.2% and 2.6%, respectively). The highest year-over-year inventory growth was reported for the not-for-profit CCRC memory care segments and independent living segments (1.4% and 0.4%, respectively).  

Negative inventory growth can occur when units/beds are temporarily or permanently taken offline or converted to another care segment, outweighing added inventory.   

In conclusion, the senior housing industry can benefit from the occupancy success lessons of CCRCs. Collaboration and shared knowledge can be the key to achieving this goal. By learning from each other’s best practices, the industry can better serve its residents and prepare for any future challenges that may arise. 

Look for future blog posts from NIC to delve deep into the performance of CCRCs.  

Are you interested in learning more?  

To learn more about NIC MAP Vision data, and about accessing the data featured in this article, schedule a meeting with a product expert today.  

This article originally appeared in Ziegler’s Senior Living Finance Z-News. 

This article is the first in NIC’s Industry Thought Leaders Series, bringing insights from leaders in the field to NIC Notes readers.  

When I walk the halls of the NIC Conference, I see ghosts. Memories of big personalities of past large company operators are still clear in my mind. Most of those fast growth companies are gone now, but do we have clarity about the lessons they provide?

One particular memory is of one CEO standing in the bar at the Sheraton Chicago with a line of people ten deep all waiting to sell him a building. At its peak, his company was buying on average one building per day. Maybe they simply outgrew their quality, which is a way of saying they added more buildings than they were operationally able to manage well? Likewise, gone are the days of Lyle Lovett, Jim Belushi, and KC and the Sunshine band private concerts. Gone are the themed receptions that felt more like Vegas than a financial meeting with shows of dancers moving provocatively behind a backlit curtain. Mild compared to most financial sector conferences of the 1990s and early 2000s, the NIC has smartly and thoughtfully responded to changing times. Leaders like Lynne Katzmann, Judy Marczewski, and Kelsey Mellard have nudged and sometimes shoved us in a new direction. DEI and ESG are now flags flown declaring new understanding, awareness of our responsibility, and commitment to all represented in our profession. And, of course, Bob Kramer is always poised to sound the charge of advancement by being the industry’s agent provocateur. Capital providers and operators have evolved in their awareness of changes in society, but have we evolved in our understanding of the cultural differences between each other? Do we really understand how to fulfill our promises to our customers — older adults? 

The NIC has offered capital providers and operators the venue for our industry to evolve for the next generation. In my 26 years in attendance, I have seen our industry grapple with the question of organizational size. What is the right size of a quality operator? Twenty buildings, 40 buildings or 100? Since most of the “ghosts” I mentioned above were large national providers who prioritized scale over quality, have we generally come to think that quality cannot be achieved by these whales? All of these ghost organizations started out with a quality mission and were run by good folks, even friends of ours. So why, as they grew, did their quality decrease and, is it absolutely true that size determines quality? 

I started The Springs Living in 1996, and by 2010, our company had outgrown our seed capital partner and was looking for institutional capital that could align with our new, bigger building concept of building rental CCRCs. We turned to a fairly new capital provider at the time called Harrison Street. Flying from Portland to Chicago to meet with one of Harrison Street’s founders, former Motorola CEO, Chris Galvin, I had all the numbers memorized expecting to get grilled about financials. After pleasantries, in a conference room at their headquarters on Wacker Drive, Mr. Galvin volleyed the first question. “Tell me about your culture.” I was confused, why didn’t he ask me about my NOI margin? Fortunately, the answer came naturally for me, and I explained my “why.” Obviously satisfied with the answer, he transitioned to the next question. “How big do you want to grow?” 

I had seen some large senior housing companies fail and did not think most were capable of producing a place where I would want my family to live, or myself for that matter. I answered, “Not very big because senior housing is not a big company business.” Mr. Galvin grinned a little bit before challenging my statement. “It’s not about the size of the organization,” he said, “it’s simply that your industry has not yet figured out its limiters.” That statement stuck and has driven my ongoing obsession to figure out our industry’s limiters. 

One of those limiters may be our understanding of the differences between organizational cultures. Not just our individual organization’s culture, but the underlying industry cultures of the stakeholders needed to meet the customer demand. I am talking about the culture of capital and the culture of operators, who each see the world through different lenses…I am proposing we may be limited by lack of clarity between the culture of capital and the culture of operators. Not sure what I just said? That is exactly my point. 

Senior housing operators and senior housing capital providers may be like sugar is to salt. Both need each other to meet the needs of the customer, but their composition is vastly different. The Schneider Cultural Model may offer some insight to the differences. This model proposes that operators are cultures of “cultivation,” and capital are cultures of “control.” Operators are all about purpose, belief, and value to name a few clarifying characteristics. Capital is about predictability, order, capacity and, of course, returns. Try justifying a pro forma to a capital provider based on a “belief” if you can’t hit their target IRR. If you’re an asset manager, try telling an operator they need to stick to the “policy” instead of care for their residents. Schneider’s cultural model just may offer some clarity, and, as an industry, we must get better at understanding how to deliver quality. After all, if an organization grows, shouldn’t it have more resources? If it has more resources, it should be able to make life better for residents as well as the employees, and that should produce better risk adjusted returns for capital. The ability to deploy capital faster than organizations can grow quality plagues our industry, and, if we don’t learn the lessons from the organizational ghosts of the past, we are destined to repeat history. It seems it’s easier to talk investment committees into committing funds to real estate than it is to fund operational infrastructure that will help us give our customers the care they want as well as the returns investors need. 

Emerging out of COVID is our industry’s chance to reinvent ourselves, to change our paradigm, and be the organizations that our customers need. Seventy million baby boomers are counting on us to get this right. To do that, we need to work together to meet the needs of our customers and employees. As a profession, the public perceives us as only as good as the lowest quality operation in our market. More than enough demand exists to fill all of our buildings if we offer the quality that folks want and need. It is time to change the recipe and have a conversation around our limiters and our differences so we can invest in quality and grow together. The foodies of the world have shown us how amazing the combination of a little salt with a little sugar can be. Different ingredients when blended wisely can yield satisfying and sustainable results. Likewise, a clear cultural understanding between capital and operations can help us fulfill our promise to our customers, and those customers will be us someday. I believe the best days of senior housing and care are ahead; 70,000,000 people are counting on it.

The unemployment rate reversed course and rose to 3.6% in February from 3.4% in January, which was its lowest level since 1969. Separately, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics also reported that nonfarm payrolls rose by 311,000 in February 2023, below the monthly pace of 343,000 over the prior six months, but still strong. Market expectations had called for a gain of less than 225,000 jobs. Revisions subtracted 34,000 positions to total payrolls in the previous two months. 

Today’s report shows the labor market remains strong with the economy still creating jobs at a rapid, albeit, slowing pace. That said, the slight rise in the jobless rate and a slowing in average hourly earnings suggest a potential adjustment in the labor markets is starting to occur. This report is not likely to change the path of the Federal Reserve which continues to increase interest rates to slow the economy in its fight against inflation. All eyes will now be focused on the CPI report to be released next week as the market tries to determine how much higher the Fed will push interest rates.

Employment in health care rose by 44,000 in February, compared with the average monthly increase of 54,000 over the past six months. Employment in nursing care facilities grew by 5,400 jobs from last month and 43,500 from year-earlier levels and stood at 1,386,800 positions. Jobs increased by 9,600 positions in CCRC and assisted living facilities and were up by 60,300 from year-earlier levels to 940,300 jobs.

In the household survey conducted by the BLS, the jobless rate increased 0.2 percentage point to 3.6%, up from 3.4% in January which was the lowest rate since 1969. Both months’ unemployment rates were well below the 14.7% peak seen in April 2020. The underemployment rate was 6.8% versus 6.6% in January.

Average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by $0.08 in January to $33.09. This was a gain of 4.6% from year-earlier levels.

The labor force participation rate inched up to 62.5% in February, up from 62.4% in January and the highest level since March 2020. It was below the February 2020 level of 63.3%, however.

Among the major worker groups, the January unemployment rates were 3.2% for adult women, adult men (3.3%), teenagers (11.1%), Whites (3.2%), Hispanics (5.3%), Blacks (5.7%), and Asians (3.4%), according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“In a new question to the ESI, respondents were asked what areas have been impacted by the rising interest rate environment. Purchasing properties was the area most reported to be affected by rising interest rates, followed by the ability to recapitalize properties. Across all care segments, one in twelve operators (8%) indicate that their abilities to purchase, sell, and recapitalize properties have all been impacted by the rising interest rate environment. 

Respondents were also asked if their organization has set up formal partnerships with health care risk-sharing entities, such as accountable care organizations (ACOs) or Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. Four out of five respondents (81%) indicate that their organization does not have formal health care partnerships established, however a portion of this group (26%) also indicate that their organization is in active discussions to establish these types of partnerships. Only one in five (19%) responding organizations have formal partnerships with health care risk-sharing entities.” 

–Ryan Brooks, Senior Principal, NIC 

This ESI survey includes responses from February 1, 2023, to February 28, 2023, from owners and executives of 58 small, medium, and large senior housing and skilled nursing operators across the nation, representing hundreds of buildings and thousands of units across respondents’ portfolios of properties. More detailed reports for each “wave” of the survey and a PDF of the report charts can be found on the NIC COVID-19 Resource Center webpage under Executive Survey Insights.  

In the February 2023 survey, respondents were asked in what areas their organization is using technology to maximize the efficiencies of the existing workforce. The most common area where technology is being deployed to maximize workforce efficiencies is in Human Resources. Categories of technological deployment within Human Resources include recruiting, staff onboarding, staff training, and employee retention. Almost nine of ten respondents (86%) reported using technology to improve efficiencies in Human Resources, followed by two-thirds (67%) deploying technology in Operations, and more than half deploying technology in Marketing (59%) and Finance (55%). Only one out of every six respondents reported using technology to improve workforce efficiency in the area of Supply Chain, however.  

With the area of Human Resources experiencing a high degree of technological implementation to improve workforce efficiencies, it may not come as a surprise that operators are expressing some optimism with regards to their agency staff utilization in 2023. Two-thirds (67%) of responding operators expect to use less agency labor in 2023 when compared to 2022. Almost one-third (28%) anticipate using the same amount of agency labor, and only 5% expect to require more agency utilization than last year.  

Technology applications in the Operations area include voice-enabled rooms, electronic medical records, and medication distribution. Applications within the Marketing area include virtual tours and customer relationship management while applications within the Finance area include accounting and procurement practices.   

In a new question to the ESI, respondents were asked what areas have been impacted by the rising interest rate environment. Purchasing properties was the area most reported to be affected by rising interest rates, followed by the ability to recapitalize properties. Across all care segments, just under one in ten operators (8%) indicate that their abilities to purchase, sell, and recapitalize properties have all been impacted by the rising interest rate environment. 

Respondents were also asked to specify in what ways those areas have been affected. Responses include an increased cost of capital, increased difficulty reaching good financing terms, and the increased cost of debt leading to wider bid-ask spreads that put both sellers and potential recapitalization partners on the sidelines. 

When asked about other challenges currently facing their organization, rising operator expenses was cited as the most common (26%), followed by staff turnover (24%), and attracting community and caregiving staff (23%). Less commonly cited challenges include low occupancy rates (10%), new competition (6%), and the 2023 recession (6%). 

In the February survey, respondents were asked if their organization has set up formal partnerships with health care risk-sharing entities, such as accountable care organizations (ACOs) or Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. Four out of five respondents (81%) indicate that their organization does not have formal health care partnerships established, however a portion of this group (26%) also indicate that their organization is in active discussions to establish these types of partnerships. Only one in five (19%) responding organizations have formal partnerships with health care risk-sharing entities. 

Among organizations who do currently have these formal partnerships established, responses show that the programs are not always implemented in every community. One-third (30%) of operators report these partnerships are established in up to 25% of their communities. One-tenth of operators indicate these programs are implemented in between 26-50% and another one-tenth indicate they are implemented in between 51-75% of their communities. The remaining half of responses have implemented these programs in between 76-100% of their communities. 

February 2023 Survey Demographics 

• Responses were collected between February 1, 2023, and February 28, 2023, from owners and executives of 58 senior housing and skilled nursing operators across the nation.
• Owners/operators with 1 to 10 properties comprise more than one-half of the sample (60%). Operators with 11 to 25 properties account for one-fifth (19%) and operators with 26 properties or account for another one-fifth (21%).
• Two-thirds of respondents are exclusively for-profit providers (64%), one-third operate not-for-profit seniors housing and care properties (31%), and 5% operate both.
• Many respondents in the sample report operating combinations of property types. Across their entire portfolios of properties, three-quarters (74%) of the organizations operate seniors housing properties (IL, AL, MC), 21% operate nursing care properties, and 28% operate CCRCs – also known as life plan communities. 

The March 2023 ESI survey is currently open and will be collecting responses through March 31, 2023. If you are an owner or C-suite executive of seniors housing and care and would like an invitation to participate in the survey, please contact Ryan Brooks at rbrooks@nic.org to be added to the list of recipients. 

NIC wishes to extend a heartfelt thank you to the owners and operators who have contributed to this survey over the past three years. It is remarkable that we have now completed more than 50 waves. We have surveyed through numerous challenges — COVID-19, threats of a looming recession, labor shortages, inflation, and rising expenses — many of which persist. As we continue to navigate these challenges, your input and real-time insights help ensure the narrative on the senior housing and care sector is accurate. By demonstrating transparency, you build trust. 

The senior housing stabilized occupancy rate for the NIC MAP Primary Markets edged up to 84.3% in the February 2023 reporting period, up 0.2 percentage point (pps) from the January 2023 reporting period on three-month rolling basis, according to intra-quarterly NIC MAP^® data, released by NIC MAP Vision. From its pandemic record low of 80.3% in June 2021, senior housing stabilized occupancy increased by 4.0pps but remained 5.1pps below pre-pandemic March 2020 levels of 89.4%. Drilling down by metropolitan markets, Boston ranked first among the 31 NIC MAP Primary Markets with a stabilized occupancy rate of 89.8% (up 0.2pps from January 2023 and 7.1pps from its pandemic record low, but still 2.3pps below March 2020 levels). Boston’s stabilized occupancy rate was nearly 6pps above the average for NIC MAP Primary Markets. 

By Majority Property Type. At 86.3%, the stabilized occupancy rate for majority independent living (IL) properties for the NIC MAP Primary Markets inched up 0.1pps from the January 2023 reporting period on a three-month rolling basis, but remained 5.0pps below March 2020 levels. For majority assisted living properties (AL), the stabilized occupancy rate for the NIC MAP Primary Markets was up 0.2pps to 82.2% from January 2023 but still 5.0pps below March 2020 levels.  

Stabilized occupancy for AL continued to recover relatively fast compared with IL despite the relatively large inventory growth since the onset of the pandemic, but it’s notable that the AL stabilized occupancy rate also fell further from peak to trough. From it’s pandemic-related low, stabilized occupancy for AL increased by 5.5pps, twice the increase for IL (up 2.7pps since June 2021). 

Inventory Growth. From March 2020 to February 2023, the inventory of IL and AL for the NIC MAP Primary Markets increased by 5.6% and 7.4%, respectively. However, from year-earlier levels, the inventory of IL increased by 1.9% or 6,490 units in the February 2023 reporting period, 0.3pps larger than that of AL (1.6pps). Notably, for both IL and AL inventory growth continued to be relatively slow compared with pre-pandemic levels, but growth in inventory did occur. 

While new inventory compounded the downward pressure on occupancy during the height of the pandemic, this slowdown in the growth in senior housing inventory and development activity is helping to bring supply and demand into better balance and will ultimately serve as a tailwind for the occupancy recovery. 

Select Metropolitan Markets. Stabilized occupancy rates increased or remained stable in 20 of the 31 Primary Markets for IL in the February 2023 reporting period compared with January 2023. Boston’s stabilized occupancy inched down by 0.1pps from the January 2023 reporting period, but at 94.0%, Boston continued to rank the highest among the 31 NIC MAP Primary Markets. Boston recovered 5.2pps from its pandemic-low and is currently 1.5pps short of reaching a full recovery and returning to March 2020 levels (in terms of stabilized occupancy). Orlando IL stabilized occupancy improved by 0.2pps from January 2023, but at 79.2%, it is still ranked at the bottom of the pack. In fact, Orlando is the only IL primary market with an average occupancy rate below 80%. 

Stabilized occupancy rates rose or remained stable in 24 of the 31 Primary Markets for AL in February 2023 compared with January 2023. Boston had the second highest occupancy rate for AL among the 31 Primary Markets at 86.0% (up 0.4pps from January 2023 and 8.8pps from its pandemic record low, but still 3.1pps below March 2020 levels). Cleveland stabilized occupancy rate stood at 78.2% in February 2023, up 0.3pps from January 2023. Cleveland had the second lowest occupancy rate for AL among the 31 Primary Markets. 

Keep track of the most timely comprehensive review of the sector’s market fundamentals and trends. The NIC Intra-Quarterly Snapshot monthly publication, available for complimentary download on our website, continues to provide a powerful and closely watched means to stay ahead of industry trends, even as senior housing markets sustain a fast pace of evolution and adaptation, amidst an apparent recovery.  

The March 2023 IQ Snapshot report will be released on our website on Thursday, March 9, 2023, at 4:30pm. 

Interested in learning more about NIC MAP Intra-Quarterly data? To learn more about NIC MAP Vision data, schedule a meeting with a product expert today.