South Carolina ›Inman

Golden Age Operations

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

82 N Main Street, Inman, SC 29349 (opens Google Maps) · Spartanburg County · (864) 472-6636· 44 certified beds · avg 39 residents/day · certified since Oct 11, 1991 · Medicare and Medicaid certified

Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Feb 27, 2026
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Jun 25, 2025
$10,364
Fines, last 3 years
3.90
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

New to these records? How to read an inspection report →

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · how star ratings work →

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jun 25, 2025 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: May 13, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jun 25, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: May 13, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 12 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated

    The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint F-0600

  2. J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated

    The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint F-0689

  3. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. F-0656

View all 12 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jun 25, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600
Jun 25, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Mar 19, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656
Mar 19, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686
Mar 19, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695
Mar 19, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880
Jun 11, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint · F-0658
Jun 11, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Apr 20, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657
Apr 20, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658
Apr 20, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them. · F-0865
Apr 20, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880

Inspection trend by year

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 2

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202340D
202420D
202562J ▲

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

How to file a complaint about care →

2 fines totaling $10,364.

Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.

DateTypeAmount / length
Jun 25, 2025Fine$5,182
Jun 25, 2025Fine$5,182

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilitySouth Carolina averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.90
South Carolina average: 4.08
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.82
South Carolina average: 0.67
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.53
South Carolina average: 3.55
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilitySouth Carolina avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.904.083.95top 49% in South Carolina; top 44% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.820.670.69top 19% in South Carolina; top 26% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.533.553.50top 41% in South Carolina; top 40% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.520.410.48top 20% in South Carolina; top 31% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)60.545.945.8bottom 17% in South Carolina; bottom 16% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)75.042.142.9bottom 9% in South Carolina; bottom 9% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.43, RN 0.72, weekend 3.11.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.43 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.

Quality measures: assessments & claims

Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.

Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Golden Age Operations. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.

Calculate a stay from a quote you receive

Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.

Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.

Before you compare prices

  • Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
  • Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
  • Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.

Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price

Who owns this facility

How to read ownership records →

Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →

For profit - Individual

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Bokor, MichaelIndividualIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2020
Greenwald, MichaelIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest—03/01/2019
MDB Holdings 1 LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2020
Yakar Holdings, LLCOrganizationDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2019
Yakar Operating LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2019
Bokor, MichaelIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2022
Bokor, MichaelIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2022
Bokor, MichaelIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2022
Bokor, MichaelIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2020
Greenwald, MichaelIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2019
Haubner, BrandonIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/08/2022
Haubner, BrandonIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE03/08/2022
Johnson, DenaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/03/2023
Johnson, DenaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/03/2023

All 14 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

  • "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
  • "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
  • "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
  • "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
  • "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
  • "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
  • "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
  • "CMS reports 61% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 14 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
  • "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (12 closest of 23 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Inman Healthcare0.3 miInman, SC★★★★☆3/5
Lake Emory Post Acute Care1.1 miInman, SC★☆☆☆☆2/5abuse
Magnolia Manor - Inman1.1 miInman, SC★☆☆☆☆1/5SFF
Rosecrest Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center4.0 miInman, SC★★★★★5/5
Valley Falls Terrace7.2 miSpartanburg, SC★★★☆☆4/5
Physical Rehabilitation and Wellness Center of Spa8.9 miSpartanburg, SC★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Chandler Creek Post Acute10.6 miGreer, SC★☆☆☆☆1/5
Spartanburg Hospital for Restorative Care SNF10.8 miSpartanburg, SC★★★★★5/5
Magnolia Manor - Spartanburg10.8 miSpartanburg, SC★★★☆☆3/5
White Oak Manor - Spartanburg10.9 miSpartanburg, SC★★★★☆4/5
White Oak at North Grove INC11.6 miSpartanburg, SC★☆☆☆☆1/5
Brushy Creek Post Acute12.4 miGreer, SC★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Spartanburg, SC — 15 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Inman →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 425316.

This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details