Skip to content
FonteumPublic-records evidence
Screen 25 NPIs free →Buy $129 certificate →
Fonteum Care Compare · North Dakota

North Dakota dialysis facilities: 16 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 North Dakota.

Editorial note: North Dakota is a state where source-cited public-data coverage of dialysis chain-ownership is materially thinner than national averages — Fonteum prioritizes full provenance + state context here.

Chain concentration — North Dakota

Dialysis is the most consolidated category in CMS Care Compare. 25.0% of North Dakota facilities are chain-owned; here are the largest chains by facility count in this state.

Independent
12
Sanford Health
2
DaVita
2

Dialysis facilities — North Dakota

Showing 16 of 16 Medicare-certified facilities, highest CMS 5-star rating first (14 carry a published rating; the remainder are suppressed for low patient volume and shown without a star).

FacilityCityChainRating (of 5)
Sanford tom and frances leach bismarck dialysisBISMARCKIndependent4
Davita fargo dialysis centerFARGODaVita3
Chi st alexius health - dickinson dialysisDICKINSONIndependent3
Chi st alexius health - williston dialysisWILLISTONIndependent3
Sanford jamestown dialysisJAMESTOWNIndependent3
Sanford fort yates dialysisFORT YATESIndependent3
Altru dialysis sat at mercy hospDEVILS LAKEIndependent3
Sanford dialysis fargoFARGOSanford Health3
Chi st alexius health - bismarck dialysisBISMARCKIndependent2
Trinity hospital renal dialysis centerMINOTIndependent2
Davita dialysis at the forksGrand ForksDaVita2
Three affiliated tribes dialysisNEW TOWNIndependent1
Aurora dialysis llcGRAND FORKSIndependent1
Trinity sat - belcourt dialysisMINOTIndependent1
Sanford dialysis i-94FargoSanford Health—
The kidney institute of north dakotaGRAND FORKSIndependent—

Methodology · Sources · Corrections log · Editorial policy

What’s on file, by the numbers

Platform snapshot · 2026-09-20

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
8fresh 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