No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

PruittHealth- Dillon

413 Lakeside Court, Dillon, SC 29536 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 84 certified beds · (843) 774-2741 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0605) — cited Jun 20242 immediate-jeopardy citations$10,036 in federal fines
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (27% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0605), cited Jun 2024
  • inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • the CMS record shows $10,036 in federal fines (most recent 2024-06-21)
  • its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
  • about 25% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

2/5
CMS overall
2 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
1639 Highway 301 N · (843) 774-5182 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1210 Highway 301 N · (843) 774-2707 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
234 Radford Blvd · (843) 774-2923 · Call to confirm hours
Park
500 N 8th Ave · (843) 841-2030 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
516 E Reaves Ave

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 3 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 2 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating2★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased11.4%11.9%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight0.0%6.3%5.4%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.5%0.6%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.4%1.3%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.0%3.1%6.5%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury1.8%3.2%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened10.5%12.7%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication11.2%21.0%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine85.5%90.6%95.3%worse
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.5%5.1%4.7%typical
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control17.0%16.7%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table20.8%15.3%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication2.0%1.5%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine66.0%78.0%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission25.9%24.3%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit10.2%13.9%12.0%better

* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

44.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 46 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

44.0%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.4%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
0.19U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.11hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.08hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.19 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 20% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF44.0%CMS range 33.5–57.751.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.4%CMS range 7.4–17.210.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identifiednot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF staynot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsenednot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization8.3%CMS range 4.8–16.47.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.231.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.47
RN hours/ resident / day
0.76
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.73
Aide hours/ resident / day
2.96
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.32
RN hoursweekends
26.8%
Total nursing turnover
0.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 84 beds and averages 84.4 residents a day — about 100% occupied, or roughly -0 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.96 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.47 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.73 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.45 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.16 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.53 to 0.32 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 27% is below the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

4
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-05-23)
7
at the previous standard inspection (2024-06-21)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Immediate jeopardy · J2024-06-21 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolated
    Prevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and facility policy the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)369 was free from chemical restraints when it was identified that R369 was administered Haloperidol (An antipsychotic used to treat certain types of mental disorders (eg, schizophrenia). It can also control symptoms of Tourette syndrome) for 'exit-seeking behaviors, for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. On 06/20/24 at 2:09 PM, the survey team notified the Administrator and DON that the failure to ensure residents are free from physical or chemical restraints imposed for purposes of discipline or convenience and that are not required to treat the residents medical symptoms constituted IJ at F605. On 06/20/24 at 2:09 PM, the survey team provided the Administrator and DON with a copy of the CMS IJ template and informed them that IJ existed as of 06/17/24, due to Resident (R)369 receiving a Haldol injection after displaying exit seeking behaviors and staff being unable to redirect the resident from…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Immediate jeopardy · J2024-06-21 · tag F0624 — isolated
    Prepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge from the nursing home.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide Resident (R)369 and her Resident Representative with sufficient preparation and presentation to ensure an orderly and safe discharge from the facility, for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for transfer/discharge. On 06/19/24 at 9:09 PM, the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) were notified that the failure to provide and document sufficient preparation and orientation to ensure residents have a safe and orderly discharge from the facility constituted Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) at F624. On 06/19/24 at 9:09 PM, the survey team provided the Administrator and DON with a copy of the CMS IJ Template and informed the facility the IJ existed as of 06/19/24. The IJ was related to 483.15 Admission, Transfer, and Discharge. On 06/20/24 the facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan. On 06/20/24 at 12:23 PM, the survey team validated the facility's corrective action and removed the IJ as of 06/20/24 at 12:23 PM. The…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-05-23 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
    Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interviews, and procedure guide review, the facility failed to notify a physician of a high blood sugar level for one of five residents (Resident (R) 50) reviewed for unnecessary medication of 27 sample residents. The facility failed to notify the resident's physician of a significant change in the resident's blood glucose levels. Findings include: Review of the facility's procedure guide titled, Change in Condition reporting parameters, dated June 2018 and provided by the Director of Health Services (DHS), revealed that staff were to report to the resident's physician any Blood Glucose levels greater than 300mg/dl (milligrams/ deciliter) or less than 70mg/dl. Review of R50's face sheet located under the Resident tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the resident was admitted to the facility from the hospital on [DATE], with diagnoses that included pneumonia, overactive bladder, type two diabetes mellitus, and Alzheimer's disease. Review of R50's care plan, located under the…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-05-23 · tag F0645 — isolated
    PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to accurately complete Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) as required for one of one resident (Resident (R) 25) reviewed for PASARRs of 27 sample residents. R25 did not have an accurate PASARR Level I which failed to identify that the resident had intellectual disabilities prior to his admission to the facility. This deficient practice resulted in R25 not being evaluated for and/or provided specialized care and treatment. Findings include: Review of a document for R25 located under Resident titled PASARR - Level I Screening Form, dated 02/27/25, failed to indicate the resident had a diagnosis of intellectual disabilities. Review of R25's electronic medical record (EMR) titled Resident Face Sheet located under the Resident tab indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of unspecified intellectual disabilities. Review of R25's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-05-23 · tag F0848 — isolated
    Provide a neutral and fair arbitration process and agree to arbitrator and venue.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to contain specific language into the facility's arbitration agreement for three of three residents (Resident (R) 5, R15, and R45) reviewed for arbitration agreement of 27 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that residents and/or their representatives were informed of the opportunity to agree on a neutral arbitrator and convenient location for the arbitration to be held. Findings include: 1. Review of R5's Resident Face Sheet found in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the dashboard, indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of a document provided by the facility titled, Arbitration Agreement, signed 12/10/19, indicated R5's representative signed the agreement. The arbitration agreement indicated .The parties intend that Miles Mediation and Arbitration Services (CMMAS') shall be the Arbitration Service Provider . The document did not expressly state that the residents and/or their representative…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-23 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to adhere to infection control practices and policies for three of three residents (Resident (R)5, R50, and R73) reviewed for infection control of 27 sample residents. The facility failed to wear a gown and implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for R5 and failed to ensure the residents' catheter was not touching the ground for R50 and R73. The deficient practice increased the risk of infection for the residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP), revised 04/30/24, indicated Enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) refer to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and gloves use during high contact resident care activities .Initiation of Enhanced Barrier Precautions .An order for enhanced barrier precautions will be obtained for residents with any of the following: Wounds…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2024-06-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on review of facility policy, observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure: accurate labeling and dating of foods and removal of expired foods from 1 of 1 main kitchen. Findings include: Review of the facility policy title Labeling, Dating, and Storage dated 2014, revealed, Policy Statement: It is the policy of PruittHealth for all partners who assist in handling, preparing, serving, and storing food and beverage items to follow the proper procedures for labeling, dating, and storage to ensure proper food safety. During an observation on 06/18/24 at 10:47 AM, with the Dietary Manager (DM), revealed the cooler contained the following: 2 rotten heads of cabbage, dated 05/08/24, 3 cucumbers undated in a box that contained potatoes, 1 jar of reliance Italian dressing, opened 06/03/21 with an expiration date of 04/30/24, 1 large container of Apple Sauce dated 06/10/24, no expiration date. During an interview on 06/19/24 at 12:48 PM, the Kitchen Manager-Dietary Manager (DM) revealed labeling, storing, discarding of expired items are done by all staff and…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-21 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to implement care plan interventions for Resident (R)55 for oxygen use, for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for care plans. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Care Plans last revised on 07/21/21, revealed, It is policy of the health care center for each patient/residents to have a person centered baseline care plan followed by a comprehensive care plan developed following the completion of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) and Care Area Assessment (CAA) portions of the comprehensive assessment according to the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual and the patient/resident choice. Comprehensive care plans should be reviewed not less than quarterly according to the MDS schedule, following the completion of the assessment. Care plans updates/reviews will be performed within seven days of each quarterly assessment, each acute change in condition, and as needed following each hospital stay. Care plans will be updated by…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-06-21 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was dependent on staff for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain personal hygiene, specifically nail care, bed baths and showers, for 1 of 7 sampled residents (Resident (R) 2). Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Charting Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) with a date of 2014, revealed, Definitions: Activities of Daily Living (ADLS's): The task of everyday life. The ability or inability to perform ADL's is a measurement of the functional status of a person. Review of R2's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/19/24, indicated R2 was admitted to the facility from the hospital on [DATE], with diagnoses including but not limited to: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with (acute) exacerbation, chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure, malignant neoplasm of upper lobe, left bronchus or lung,…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-06-21 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
    Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records for Resident (R)55, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, for 1 of 5 residents reviewed. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Maintenance of Medical Records last revised on 12/06/22 revealed, It is the policy of the facility to maintain a medical record for each patient/resident in the healthcare center/agency that is to be accurate, complete, and systematically organized. Review of R55's Face Sheet revealed R55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the diagnoses including but not limited to: respiratory syncytial pneumonia, sleep apnea, type 2 diabetes, and muscle weakness. Review of R55's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 06/05/24, revealed R55 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, which indicated that she is cognitively intact. Further review of the…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on review of the facility policy, observations, interviews, recorded reviews, the facility failed to utilize appropriate hand hygiene during serving of meals on 1 of 3 units. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Infection Prevention - Hand Hygiene dated 2014, revealed, D. Indication Requiring Hand Wash or Hand Rub: 9. Passing meal trays to residents. During an observation on 06/19/24 at 8:18 AM, revealed on the Northside, staff not sanitizing their hands while passing out breakfast trays to residents. During an observation on 06/19/24 at approximately 12:37 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)3 was not sanitizing her hands while passing out lunch meal trays. During an observation on 06/20/24 at 5:37 PM, CNA4 was not sanitizing her hands while passing out dinner meal trays. During an interview on 06/19/24 at approximately 2:37 PM, CNA3 revealed the policy and procedure for sanitizing hands while passing out meal trays is to always sanitize hand before going in the room and coming out of the residents' room, no exceptions. During an interview on 06/20/24 at…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2022-03-02 · tag F0700 — pattern
    Try different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure four (Residents(R)8, R21, R42, and R48) of four reviewed were assessed for the use of side rails, failed to accurately complete the side rail consents, and failed to attempt alternative use of bed rails prior to the use of side rails. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Bed Rails dated 02/01/18, revealed prior to installing or using bed rails on a patient's bed, the patient should be assessed by the admitting nursing and/or interdisplinary team (IDT) .the patient and/or the patient's representative should be educated on the proper use of bed rails as well as the risks of using bed rails, which should include, but not limited to, the risk of entrapment. The nurse should complete the initial/annual observation for physical device form in determining whether the bedrails should be considered an enabler or a restraint for the patient. 1. Review of R8's undated Face Sheet located in…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-03-02 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Version 3.0 Manual, the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for one of 20 residents (Resident (R)42). Specifically, R42's comprehensive assessments revealed the resident was not accurately assessed for existing skin problems. Findings include: Review of CMS's RAI Version 3.0 Manual Section M1040: Other Ulcers, Wounds and Skin Problems Skin wounds and lesions affect quality of life for residents because they may limit activity, may be painful, and may require time-consuming treatments and dressing changes. Many of these ulcers, wounds and skin problems can worsen or increase risk for local and systemic infections .The presence of wounds and skin changes should be accounted for in the interdisciplinary care plan .1. Review the medical record, including skin care flow sheets or other skin tracking forms. 2. Speak…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-03-02 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, review of hospital records, interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure one (Resident (R)42) of 20 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans had a care plan revised to include the resident's newly diagnosed skin cancer. This deficient practice had the potential for R42 to experience skin complications that could worsen or increase risk for local and systemic infections. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Care Plans dated 12/31/96 directs It is the policy of the health care center for each patient/resident to have a person centered [sic] baseline care plan followed by a comprehensive care plan developed following completion of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) and Care Area Assessment (CAA) portions of the comprehensive assessment according to the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual and the patient/resident choice . The comprehensive care plan should describe the following- - The services to be furnished to attain or maintain the…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-03-02 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
    Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide services based on acceptable standards of practice, by specifically failing to accurately assess an oral health status for a resident upon admission (Resident (R) 201) in a sample of 20. Findings include: Review of R201's Face Sheet located under the Resident then Face Sheet tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R201 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and included the following diagnoses: cerebral infarction (stroke) and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Review of R201's Oral Cavity Observation document dated 02/22/22 and located under the Resident then Observations tab of the EMR revealed R201's tongue was pink and smooth. Review of R201's admission Note dated 02/22/22, located under the Resident then Progress Notes tab in the EMR revealed, Patient requires total care for all Activities of Daily Livings (ADLs). Review of R201's Point of Care History, provided to the survey team by the facility, revealed oral…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-03-02 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide necessary respiratory care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice, by specifically failing to change oxygen tubing as ordered, administer oxygen at the ordered level, and safely store respiratory equipment for one (Resident (R) 44) of two residents reviewed for respiratory care. Findings include: Review of R44's Face Sheet located under the Resident then Face Sheet tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and included the following diagnoses: functional quadriplegia and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (decreased oxygen). Review of R44's Orders located under the Resident then Orders tab, revealed the following physician's order dated 09/17/21: Oxygen: Change respiratory circuit/supplies weekly. Once a day on Sat (Saturday) days. An additional physician's order dated 09/17/21 revealed the following: Oxygen at 2 LPM…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$10,036 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $10,036 — penalty dated 2024-06-21

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to PRUITTHEALTH — 95 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 2 of 52.9-0.9 vs chain
Health inspection 2 of 52.8-0.8 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 52.5+0.5 vs chain
Quality measures 3 of 53.6-0.6 vs chain
The other 94 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
1 of 5Oaks - Athens Skilled Nursing, TheAthens, GA 1 of 5PruittHealth - Holly Hill, LLCValdosta, GA 1 of 5PruittHealth - LilburnLilburn, GA 1 of 5PruittHealth- AikenAiken, SC 1 of 5PruittHealth- ColumbiaColumbia, SC 1 of 5PruittHealth- Rock HillRock Hill, SC 1 of 5PruittHealth-Carolina PointDurham, NC 1 of 5PruittHealth-DurhamDurham, NC 1 of 5PruittHealth-TrentNew Bern, NC 1 of 5PruittHealth-Union PointeMonroe, NC 1 of 5Pruitthealth - AustellAustell, GA 1 of 5Pruitthealth - Lakehaven, LLCValdosta, GA 1 of 5Pruitthealth - MaconMacon, GA 1 of 5Pruitthealth - Magnolia ManorMoultrie, GA 1 of 5Pruitthealth - Old CapitolLouisville, GA 1 of 5Pruitthealth - PalmyraAlbany, GA 1 of 5Pruitthealth - SwainsboroSwainsboro, GA 1 of 5Pruitthealth - ToccoaToccoa, GA 1 of 5Pruitthealth - West AtlantaAtlanta, GA 2 of 5NC State Veterans Home-KinstonKinston, NC 2 of 5PruittHealth - AugustaAugusta, GA 2 of 5PruittHealth- BambergBamberg, SC 2 of 5PruittHealth- EstillEstill, SC 2 of 5PruittHealth- Moncks CornerMoncks Corner, SC 2 of 5PruittHealth- RidgewayRidgeway, SC 2 of 5PruittHealth-NeuseNew Bern, NC 2 of 5Pruitthealth - BrookhavenAtlanta, GA 2 of 5Pruitthealth - CreeksideAugusta, GA 2 of 5Pruitthealth - DecaturDecatur, GA 2 of 5Pruitthealth - FairburnFairburn, GA 2 of 5Pruitthealth - Fleming IslandFleming Island, FL 2 of 5Pruitthealth - ForsythForsyth, GA 2 of 5Pruitthealth - GriffinGriffin, GA 2 of 5Pruitthealth - Richmond, LLCAugusta, GA 2 of 5Pruitthealth - RomeRome, GA 2 of 5Pruitthealth - SavannahSavannah, GA 2 of 5Pruitthealth - Valdosta, LLCValdosta, GA 2 of 5Pruitthealth-North Tampa, LLCLutz, FL 2 of 5The Oaks-BrevardBrevard, NC 3 of 5Christian City Rehabilitation CenterUnion City, GA

Showing 40 of 94; lowest-rated first.

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
UNITED HEALTH SERVICES OF GEORGIA, INC.OrganizationDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 11/17/2007
UNITED HEALTH SERVICES OF SOUTH CAROLINA INCOrganizationDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 11/27/2013
J PAIGE PRUITT TRUSTOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/22/2021
LISA P HAMBY TRUSTOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/22/2021
NEIL L PRUITT JR TRUSTOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/22/2021
NWP 2020 CHILD TR FBO J PAIGE PRUITTOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/17/2007
NWP 2020 CHILD TR FBO LISA P HAMBYOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/17/2007
NWP 2020 CHILD TR FBO NEIL L PRUITT JROrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/17/2007
UHS-PRUITT HOLDINGS, INC.OrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/17/2007
UNITED HEALTH SERVICES INCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/17/2007
SMALL, PHILIPIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 11/27/2013
PRUITT, NANCYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 11/27/2013
PRUITT, NEILIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/12/2007
CAMPBELL, CELESTEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/21/2025
WALLACE, JAMESIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/20/2026
PRUITT PROPERTIES INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/07/2007
PRUITTHEALTH CONSULTING SERVICES INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 11/26/2013

CMS files one row per role, so the 24 rows in the source record cover these 17 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

12 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$5.6M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-22.8%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.7M
Related-party expense25% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 69%Medicare 7%Other / private 24%

This home reported $1.7M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 25% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$318per resident / day
operating cost
$9,654per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$259per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in SC

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the South Carolina Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in South Carolina
$9,034/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$9,612/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,350/mo
Assisted living

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 425113. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-23, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next