White Oak Manor - Spartanburg
295 East Pearl Street, Spartanburg, SC 29303 · For profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (864) 585-0241 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
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 | 3 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 held steady at 4 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.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 22.8% | 11.9% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.7% | 6.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 0.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.3% | 1.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 3.1% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.2% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.6% | 12.7% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.7% | 21.0% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.4% | 90.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 5.1% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.0% | 16.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.8% | 15.3% | 17.1% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.24 | 2.04 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.08 | 1.84 | 1.80 | worse |
* 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 24% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not 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 discharge | not 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 discharge | not 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 identified | not 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 setting | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this 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 discharge | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not 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 worsened | not 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 hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.85 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS 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
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 57.8 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 2 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 4.27 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.73 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.47 is at or above 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 3.77 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.47 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.83 to 0.49 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 53% is about the same as 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
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
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.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-26 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide 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, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to administer oxygen (O2) as ordered by the physician for 1 of 4 residents (Resident (R)7) reviewed for respiratory care out of a total sample of 17 residents. This failure had the potential to cause respiratory issues including shortness of breath for residents.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Oxygen Concentrator, dated 05/11/18, indicated, Objective 1. To provide oxygen to resident in need of supplement. 2. To provide continuous oxygen. 3. To promote ease and efficient oxygen delivery . Procedure . 5. Record oxygen therapy on TAR [treatment administration record] or in EMR. Include rate of flow.Review of R7's undated Face Sheet, located under the Resident tab in the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including but not limited to, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure (CHF), and acute 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.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-26 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate below five percent during observation of medication administration. The facility had two medication errors out of 27 opportunities, which resulted in a medication error rate of 7.41%.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Pharmaceutical Services Policies and Procedures Manual, dated 09/21/22, indicated, . 6 For solid medications: . b. Medications not otherwise indicated may be crushed. If Do Not Crush is added to a medication order and the resident needs to have medication crushed, please consult the pharmacy. Review of Meds That Should Not Be Crushed and Pharmacy Technician's Letter/Prescriber Insights, updated April 2025 and located at https://pharmacist.therapeuticresearch, revealed that tamsulosin capsules should not be crushed, chewed, or opened. It is a sustained-release medication designed to be released slowly and crushing it can cause too much of the drug…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that oxygen concentrators were maintained in a clean condition and free of debris for 1 of 6 concentrators in use (Resident (R)31) out of a sample of 17 residents. This failure posed a risk of cross-contamination, contaminated oxygen flow, and healthcare-associated infections. Findings include:The facility reported there was no policy on the cleaning and maintenance of oxygen concentrators and no documentation where an outside company came in and serviced the concentrators.Review of R39's Face Sheet located under the Profile tab in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including but not limited to, respiratory failure and congestive heart failure.During an observation on 03/24/26 at 8:56 AM, during first day facility rounds in R31's room, the oxygen concentrator had a brown unidentified substance down the front and other debris on the top and down the front 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-14 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN) when residents completed Medicare A therapy services for 2 of 2 residents (Residents (R)22 and R32) reviewed for beneficiary notices out of a sample of 33 residents. This failure to provide the SNF ABN prevented the residents from knowing how many days were remaining under Medicare A. Findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice indicated, . The Business Office is to initiate and deliver the SNF-ABN (CMS-10055) form when a Medicare resident is, or will be, receiving a service normally covered by Medicare, but the Provider believes is not (a) medically necessary or (b) is custodial care and the technical requirements for the coverage are met. The SNF-ABN form is required to be issued no later than 2 days before the resident's Medicare coverage is ending . 1. Review of R22's Face Sheet, located in the Face…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-14 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to follow appropriate infection control practices for hand hygiene and glove wearing for 1 out of 1 resident (Resident (R)211), observed during wound care and 1 out of 5 residents (R37), observed during medication administration out of a total sample of 33 residents. These failures increased the risk of the spread of infections. Findings include: Review of undated facility policy provided by the facility titled Hand Hygiene indicated, Hand hygiene continues to be the primary means of preventing the transmission of infection. The following is a list of some situations that require hand hygiene: . After removing gloves or aprons . Putting on and Taking off Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) . Types of PPE and Purpose Gloves: Protect hands from body fluids and other contaminates . PPE Guidelines - Wash or sanitize hands prior to donning PPE . - Remove PPE at resident doorway and perform hand hygiene immediately . - During removal of PPE, if at any time your hands become contaminated, perform hand…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-07 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to report an incident of alleged abuse involving 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Specifically, on 05/12/2023, Resident (R)34 struck R14 on her arm and the incident was not reported. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Protocol for Reporting Abuse, updated on 05/2017 revealed, If you have reason to believe, as a reasonable person, that abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment . has occurred . then that person is obligated to notify the Administrator and other officials in accordance with state law through established procedures. Furthermore, all forms of resident - to - resident abuse must be reported to the appropriate state agency(s) within 2 hours. Review of R34's Face Sheet revealed, R34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to, severe hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, delusional disorders, major depressive disorder, unspecified…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-07 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Unit 2) of 2 medication rooms had a permanently affixed compartment for the storage of controlled drugs inside the medication refrigerator. Additionally, the facility failed to monitor 1 (Unit 2) of 2 medication room refrigerator temperatures to ensure it was in safe operating condition. Findings included: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Ordering and Receiving Medications from Pharmacy, dated 08/16/2021, indicated, 5. Controlled Substances: When a controlled substance is ordered, the Pharmacist is to send a labeled Medication Count Sheet. The Nurse will sign for receipt of medication on the Form. The medication will then be placed under double lock. Further review of the policy indicated, Upon receipt of the medication shipment, medications will be placed in the locked medication room for secure storage until such medications are distributed to the appropriate location for individual resident use. The policy did not indicate that controlled drugs were to be stored in a…
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.
“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.
- 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.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CORPORATION — 69 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 4.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 4.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
The other 68 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 68; 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 / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| NHC-OP LP | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2024 |
| BLACKROCK INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2024 |
| DIMENSIONAL FUND ADVISORS LP | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2024 |
| MORGAN STANLEY | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2024 |
| MORGAN STANLEY INSTITUTIONAL ADVISORS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 11/08/2024 |
| NATIONAL HEALTH CORPORATION | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2024 |
| VANGUARD GROUP INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2024 |
| ABERNATHY, JAMES | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 08/01/2024 |
| ADAMS, ROBERT | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/13/1998 |
| ADAMS, WILLIAM | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 08/01/2024 |
| FLATT, BEN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 03/02/2017 |
| FLATT, STEPHEN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/01/2024 |
| HASSAN, EMIL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/31/2004 |
| KIDD, BRIAN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2024 |
| LAROCHE, RICHARD | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/13/1998 |
| MCCREARY, JOSH | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 04/15/2019 |
| TRAIL, SANDRA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/01/2022 |
| PIERCEY, LISA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/06/2025 |
| DODSON, VICKI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2019 |
| HEALTHPRO HERITAGE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/24/2017 |
| NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CORPORATION | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2024 |
| BELL, MISTY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2024 |
| CASTLEMAN, KATEE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2024 |
| CECIL, OLIVER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2024 |
| FORSEY, GREGORY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2024 |
| 360 MEDICAL STAFFING LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/02/2024 |
| CHANGE HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2024 |
| LUDLOW, MARY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 52 rows in the source record cover these 28 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.
11 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.
This home reported $642K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 10% 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 2023. 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
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). 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
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.
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 425024. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-26, 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.