5327 East Anderson Drive, Scottsdale, AZ 85254
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
A & I Adult Care Home Costs & Pricing
A & I Adult Care Home positions itself within the higher end of the cost spectrum for assisted living options in Maricopa County and across Arizona. The monthly fee for a semi-private room is set at $3,800, significantly exceeding the county's average of $2,801 and the state average of $2,820. Similarly, for a private room, A & I charges $4,000, which is also above both local and statewide averages - $3,318 and $3,345 respectively. This pricing reflects not only the quality of care and services provided but also positions A & I Adult Care Home as a premium choice for families seeking comprehensive support in a nurturing environment.
| Floor plans | A & I Adult Care Home | Maricopa County | Arizona |
|---|---|---|---|
| Semi-Private | $3,800 | $2,801 | $2,820 |
| Private | $4,000 | $3,318 | $3,345 |
Assisted Living communities with a similar price nearby
Overall Review of A & I Adult Care Home
Pros
The resident is very pleased with the quality of care they have received.
The staff are caring.
Cons
The home is described as best for paralyzed non-demand bedridden clients or independent, less needy clients, and not suitable for Alzheimer’s patients who are confused or need scheduling or medication support.
Staff from other countries are said to be caring but treated in a servitude role, with no designated bedrooms for staff.
It is claimed that a resident confided on days off, slept on the bus and at the mall, and that the husband did not receive needed meds if refused.
The deposit and care fees are alleged to have been kept despite the resident staying only three months, with hospitalization said to be avoidable with better medication, support, routine, and activities.
Review
A & I Adult Care Home in Scottsdale seems best suited for residents who are either already independent and low-maintenance or are bedridden but require only routine, non-complex care. The community appears to function best for individuals who do not need intensive cognitive support, daily structure around memory or medication administration, or strict appointment-based routines. Families considering this option should assume that the setting may not provide the level of dementia care, frequent medication management, or highly monitored schedules that Alzheimer’s or other cognitive impairments typically demand.
Those with a loved one who has dementia, pronounced confusion, or needs help maintaining a BR schedule and medications should immediately explore alternatives. The feedback points to a mismatch for Alzheimer’s or similarly high-need residents, and to a level of oversight and safety monitoring that may not meet expectations for ongoing cognitive care. Additionally, residents who require constant staff attention, predictable medication delivery, or robust therapeutic programming will want to look at facilities with dedicated memory-care services, clearer medication protocols, and transparent financial practices.
On the positive side, one resident conveyed genuine satisfaction with the quality of care and noted a multi-year residence in the home. That continuity hints at a stable routine, attentive staff for the right kind of resident, and a living environment where basic daily needs, when aligned with the resident’s profile, can be met with consistency. The presence of credentialed nursing leadership in at least some accounts signals that skilled oversight is possible in this setting, which can translate into responsiveness for non-dementia, lower-acuity cases.
However, the cons flagged in the remarks are significant and cannot be dismissed. The strongest warning centers on suitability for residents who need memory care or reliable, proactive medication management. Allegations about insufficient attention to a spouse’s medications, claims of staff being overwhelmed or misallocated, and reports of deposits being retained after a short stay all undermine trust in safety and financial fairness. The lack of clearly designated spaces for staff and the implication of staffing practices described as servitude-like raise red flags about day-to-day operations and resident protection, especially in crisis or hospital-admission scenarios.
In weighing the pros and cons, the care quality suggested by one resident’s experience is meaningful but ultimately contingent on a resident’s specific needs. For someone whose needs are modest and predictable, and who can manage medications and routines with limited intervention, the home could be acceptable. For families prioritizing dementia-sensitive care, transparent financial terms, and rigorous medication governance, these reports tilt toward caution. The decision hinges on risk tolerance: accept a potentially stable, basic-care environment with limited cognitive support, or pursue a setting with stronger memory-care expertise and stricter safeguards.
Practical next steps for families evaluating this community include requesting a detailed, written care plan that governs medication administration, schedules, and activity programming; asking for recent state-licensing inspections and any ownership or staffing changes; speaking with current residents and families about day-to-day oversight and responsiveness; and scheduling rigorous tours during different times of day to observe staff interactions and responses. If memory care needs are real or if there are any doubts about financial practices, it would be prudent to compare with facilities that specialize in cognitive care and have documented, transparent deposition and fee policies. In the end, the best-fit decision aligns with a resident’s cognitive status, medication needs, and the family’s confidence in the facility’s governance and safety culture.












Understanding Medicaid Coverage for Assisted Living: A Comprehensive Guide
How and When Medicaid May Cover Assisted Living Costs
A Detailed Exploration of Assisted Living Medicaid Waivers Across the United States