Skip to content
FonteumPublic-records evidence
Fonteum Care Compare · District of Columbia

District of Columbia dialysis facilities: 19 Medicare-certified, 5-star quality data, chain-ownership transparency.

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 District of Columbia.

Chain concentration — District of Columbia

Dialysis is the most consolidated category in CMS Care Compare. 100.0% of District of Columbia facilities are chain-owned; here are the largest chains by facility count in this state.

DaVita
11
Fresenius Medical Care
6
American Renal Associates
1
Kaiser Permanente
1

Dialysis facilities — District of Columbia

Showing 19 of 19 Medicare-certified facilities, highest CMS 5-star rating first (15 carry a published rating; the remainder are suppressed for low patient volume and shown without a star).

FacilityCityChainRating (of 5)
Rai - chillum-washingtonWASHINGTONFresenius Medical Care5
Davita georgetown home trainingWASHINGTONDaVita4
Bma - dupont circleWASHINGTONFresenius Medical Care3
Bma - columbia heightsWASHINGTONFresenius Medical Care3
Greater southeast community dialysis centerWASHINGTONFresenius Medical Care3
Davita eighth street dialysisWASHINGTONDaVita3
Bma - northeast washingtonWASHINGTONFresenius Medical Care3
Davita gwu southeast dialysisWASHINGTONDaVita3
Davita k street dialysisWASHINGTONDaVita3
Davita union plaza dialysis centerWASHINGTONDaVita3
Capitol dialysisWASHINGTONAmerican Renal Associates3
Kaiser health plan of the mid-atlantic statesWASHINGTONKaiser Permanente3
Rai potomac dialysisWASHINGTONFresenius Medical Care3
Davita lee street dialysisWASHINGTONDaVita2
Davita brentwood dialysisWASHINGTONDaVita2
Childrens national medical centerWASHINGTONDaVita
Davita grant park dialysisWASHINGTONDaVita
Davita washington center for agingWashingtonDaVita
Davita georgetown national home trainingWashingtonDaVita

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