Skip to content
FonteumPublic-records evidence
Fonteum Care Compare · Dialysis

Dialysis Facility Compare: 7,557 Medicare-certified facilities — 5-star quality data, ownership transparency, and the documented chain-concentration story.

CMS-published 5-star ratings, profit-vs-nonprofit status, chain affiliation, and service offerings (in-center hemodialysis, peritoneal, home hemodialysis training) for every ESRD facility in the country, with explicit suppression flags for fewer-than-11-patient measure windows.

See the Audit Pack →
Live snapshot · top 5 states by facility count
StateFacilities
TX748
CA737
FL536
GA361
NY347
Headline figure

90.2% of dialysis facilities are chain-owned in the current snapshot — concentrated under DaVita, Fresenius, and a handful of regional chains. 7,072 carry a CMS-published 5-star rating (mean 2.87 of 5 stars); the remaining 485 carry no public rating because of low patient volume in the measure window.

Source: CMS Care Compare · Dialysis Facility · Source-modified 2026-03-25 · Snapshot 2026-05-07.

National coverage

Medicare-Certified ESRD Facilities

Every facility in the CMS Care Compare Dialysis dataset — identity, ownership, certification, service offerings.

7,557
Patient load

CMS 5-Star Rating

CMS-published star rating computed from ESRD QIP measures (clinical, reporting, patient experience). Suppression for <11 patients flagged explicitly.

7,072 rated
Market concentration

Chain-Owned Concentration

Dialysis is unusually consolidated. Fonteum surfaces chain affiliation as a per-facility column, not a hidden metadata field.

90%
State coverage — top 10 by facility count

56 states + territories with Medicare-certified dialysis facilities

Every state with enough Medicare-certified dialysis facilities to report has its own quality page; the data is also in the snapshot and audit-pack export.

StateFacilities
TX748
CA737
FL536
GA361
NY347
IL340
OH314
PA305
NC255
MI222

Methodology · Sources · Corrections log · Editorial policy

What’s on file, by the numbers

Platform snapshot · 2026-08-24

13.4Mproviders & companiesProviders, organizations, owners, and facilities on file
26.2Msource-linked factsSource-linked field facts in the dated platform snapshot
90sources with dataDistinct snapshot source IDs with at least one positive record count
70fresh sourcesDistinct source IDs whose latest positive-data snapshot falls within the preceding 45 days
111sources integratedActive registry rows; integration does not establish a load
13state Medicaid jurisdictionsDistinct states represented in the state-exclusions serving table

Integrated, with-data, and fresh-observation counts are separate. No platform-wide source-completeness count is published. Completeness is source-specific and must be evaluated against the named source's expected scope. State coverage is a separate jurisdiction measure.

Source authority is record-specific

Use the issuer named on the record.

Fonteum spans federal, state, and global public publishers. A source page or returned record identifies its issuer and dataset where that metadata is available. A platform registry count does not assign every page to one authority or establish loaded, fresh, or complete coverage.

Browse source records and their stated limitations →

Reproducible by design

Inspect the evidence each published figure actually supplies.

Source and date

Research pages expose the named public file and observation date where those fields are available. Source-file SHA-256 coverage is separate; facts do not currently link deterministically to signatures.

Available derivation

Studies with a retained release and committed derivation link the SQL or method used. Other studies state the evidence and reproduction limits they actually have.

Daily observations

Dated table row-count observations can detect local drift. They do not imply that an upstream publisher released or Fonteum ingested new data that day.

Named medical review

Reviewed by Jennifer Montecillo, MD, medical reviewer. Non-practicing medical reviewer.

Read the full provenance and attestation methodology →

Request access