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 →
Part of chain: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jan 13, 2026
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Jan 3, 2025
$9,710
Fines, last 3 years
3.34
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
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)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 3, 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 (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. 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: Jan 31, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
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 (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. 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: Sep 30, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 8 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · from a complaintF-0554
G · Actual harm, 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 complaintF-0689
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · from a complaintF-0867
View all 8 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.
Date
Severity
What the facility was cited for
Jun 9, 2026
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · from a complaint · F-0554
Jan 3, 2025
▲ G · Actual harm, 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
Jan 3, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · from a complaint · F-0867
Aug 28, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550
Aug 28, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · F-0561
Sep 9, 2022
▲ G · Actual harm, 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. · F-0600
Sep 9, 2022
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems. · F-0805
Sep 9, 2022
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578
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)
2022
All citations:
3
Serious citations (G–L):
1
2024
All citations:
2
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2025
All citations:
2
Serious citations (G–L):
1
2026
All citations:
1
Serious citations (G–L):
0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Year
Citations
Serious (G–L)
Worst severity that year
2022
3
1
G ▲
2024
2
0
D
2025
2
1
G ▲
2026
1
0
D
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.
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.
Date
Type
Amount / length
Jan 3, 2025
Fine
$9,710
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
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:
3.34
South Carolina average:
4.08
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
0.35
South Carolina average:
0.67
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
2.96
South Carolina average:
3.55
U.S. average:
3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Measure
This facility
South Carolina avg
U.S. avg
Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
3.34
4.08
3.95
bottom 21% in South Carolina; bottom 28% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
0.35
0.67
0.69
bottom 15% in South Carolina; bottom 15% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
2.96
3.55
3.50
bottom 24% in South Carolina; bottom 29% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.13
0.41
0.48
bottom 3% in South Carolina; bottom 4% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
55.1
45.9
45.8
bottom 24% in South Carolina; bottom 25% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
50.0
42.1
42.9
bottom 38% in South Carolina; bottom 39% 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 3.03, RN 0.31, weekend 2.69.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.03 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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.
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Simpsonville Post Acute. 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.
All 6 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Pacs Group — 274 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
CMS records place this facility in Greenville, SC — 19 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.