Providers
All 19 in CA
SAN FRANCISCOIDENCE OPCO, LLC
NPI 1124405121, organization, San Francisco, CA, Skilled Nursing Facility
3
Evidence tier
network structure with a list link
- Part of provider network D1-00092, ranked 92 nationally.
score 60 of 100, rank 5223, $0 at stake
Provider networks
D1-00092 ranked 9280 providers around Hayward, CA: 6 hospices, 11 home health agencies, 63 nursing facilities.
National provider registry
From the CMS NPPES Registry, refreshed daily.
| Name | SAN FRANCISCOIDENCE OPCO, LLC (also SAN FRANCISCO POST ACUTE) |
| Type | Organization |
| Status | Active |
| NPI issued | April 29, 2015, last updated August 20, 2024 |
| Practice location | 5767 MISSION ST, San Francisco, CA 94112-4208, 415-584-3294 |
| Mailing address | 262 N UNIVERSITY AVE, Farmington, UT 84025-2975 |
| Authorized official | JOHN MITCHELL (Secretary) |
| Specialties | Skilled Nursing Facility (314000000X, primary) |
In this area
19 providers in San Francisco County, CA carry an indicator in the public record, with $9.4M at stake between them. The most common is part of a provider network, on 9 of them, followed by more hours than a day holds on 8. 1 is tier 1: documented action, then payment.
| tier | provider | at stake | why |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | JUAN POSADA San Francisco, CA, ranked 370 | $2K |
|
| 3 | SUTTER VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION AND HOSPICE San Francisco, CA, ranked 1210 | $339K |
|
| 3 | PINE STREET SNF, LLC San Francisco, CA, ranked 1244 | $262K |
|
| 3 | OWEN HEALTHCARE, LLC San Francisco, CA, ranked 1373 | $82K |
|
| 3 | DONE HEALTH P.C. San Francisco, CA, ranked 1989 | $0 |
|
| 3 | GOLDEN CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE, LLC San Francisco, CA, ranked 3174 | $0 |
|
| 3 | SUTTER BAY HOSPITALS San Francisco, CA, ranked 3652 | $0 |
|
| 3 | SUTTER VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION AND HOSPICE San Francisco, CA, ranked 3967 | $0 |
|
Recent enforcement in CA
All releasesDepartment of Justice and HHS-OIG releases for this state, newest first. Each opens in a new tab.
DOJPleaded guiltyAug 27, 2026
Anaheim Woman Pleads Guilty to Submitting More Than $2.2 Million in Fraudulent Hospice Care Claims to Medicare
Galbraith submitted approximately $2,266,694 in claims to Medicare for hospice services for beneficiaries who did not have a terminal illness with a life expectancy of six months or less, and Medicare paid her company approximately $2,140,606.
DOJCivil settlementAug 26, 2026
DermTech Inc. to Pay Up to $5M to Resolve Allegations It Submitted False Claims to Medicare for Unreliable Skin Cancer Tests
DermTech Inc. submitted claims to Medicare for skin cancer tests conducted with an unvalidated positive control range and for tests lacking sufficient patient RNA, and did not retract results or adequately refund Medicare.
DOJCivil settlementAug 26, 2026
DermTech Inc. to Pay Up to $5M to Resolve Allegations It Submitted False Claims to Medicare for Unreliable Skin Cancer Tests
DermTech Inc. billed Medicare for skin cancer tests conducted using an unvalidated positive control range and for tests with insufficient patient RNA, and did not retract the results or adequately refund Medicare.
DOJCivil settlementAug 24, 2026
Medicare Advantage Provider Monogram Health Agrees to Pay $2.4 Million to Settle False Claims Act Lawsuit
Monogram knowingly submitted diagnosis codes in four HCCs that were not clinically accurate, not supported by medical record documentation, and/or did not require or affect patient care, inflating Medicare Advantage beneficiaries' risk scores and causing CMS to make higher capitated payments to Medicare Advantage Organizations.
DOJCivil settlementAug 24, 2026
Medicare Advantage Provider Monogram Health Agrees to Pay $2.4M to Settle False Claims Act Suit
Monogram Health knowingly submitted diagnosis codes within four HCCs that were not clinically accurate, not supported by medical record documentation, and/or did not require or affect patient care, inflating Medicare Advantage beneficiaries' risk scores and causing CMS to make higher capitated payments to MAOs.
Referral packet
The packet is a draft for a reviewer. It reads every public record behind this case, states what the records show with a citation for each finding, names the regulation each finding relates to, and lists the ordinary explanations to rule out first. It never asserts intent.