Lancaster Health and Rehabilitation
Lancaster, SC • 2.87 HPRD • 131 residents • For Profit • Entity: Fundamental HealthcareLancaster, SC • 2.87 HPRD • 131 residentsFor Profit • Fundamental Healthcare
Lancaster Health and Rehabilitation reported 2.87 HPRD (≈ 8.4 residents per total staff) in Q3 2025. This level is below its case-mix (acuity) 3.87 HPRD and in the bottom 5% of nursing homes in South Carolina (3.64 HPRD).
Put another way… On a typical 30-bed floor at Lancaster Health and Rehabilitation you’d see about 3.6 staff, including 2.1 nurse aides. For the entire 131-resident facility, that’s about 15.6 total staff, including 9.1 nurse aides.
Case-mix is a CMS metric based on resident acuity.
Reported HPRD (2.87) is 74.0% of case-mix (3.87).
Direct staff excludes Admin/DON. State minimums via MACPAC (2022) may reflect calculated HPRD equivalents. Direct staff excludes Admin/DON. State minimums via MACPAC may reflect calculated HPRD equivalents.
Request custom PBJ analysis for litigation and investigative reporting.Request custom PBJ analysis.
Methodology
This dashboard uses CMS Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) data (2017–2025), along with other public datasets (Provider Information, Affiliated Entity). State staffing standards via MACPAC (2022).
Metrics
- Hours Per Resident Day (HPRD): Total staff hours ÷ average residents. Example: 350 hours for 100 residents = 3.5 HPRD.
- Direct Care (excl. Admin, DON): Hours per resident day for direct care staff only (RN, LPN, CNA, NAtrn, MedAide), excluding administrative and supervisory roles.
- Contract Staff %: Share of hours provided by contract staff.
- Census: Average number of residents during the period.
Note: Some states set minimums (e.g., NJ, CA, NY at 3.5 HPRD); a federal 3.48 minimum was recently overturned (2025). A 2001 federal study linked 4.1 HPRD to better outcomes in that study. Staffing needs vary by resident acuity (case-mix), day, and shift. Estimates on PBJ Takeaway assume roughly 60% of staff are CNAs.
Data transparency
The PBJ Dashboard pulls directly from CMS data and is carefully vetted for accuracy. Still, sometimes a bug sneaks into the jelly. That could mean: a systemic CMS data reporting issue (e.g., Q2 2017 contract staffing, missing data in 2020 due to COVID) or there could be a coding error on our part. If you spot something that looks off, please let me know via the contact form so I can set things right.