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

Rhode Island 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 Rhode Island.

Chain concentration — Rhode Island

Dialysis is the most consolidated category in CMS Care Compare. 87.5% of Rhode Island facilities are chain-owned; here are the largest chains by facility count in this state.

American Renal Associates
9
Fresenius Medical Care
4
Independent
2
DaVita
1

Dialysis facilities — Rhode Island

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

FacilityCityChainRating (of 5)
Dialysis center of westerlyWESTERLYAmerican Renal Associates5
Fmc nna of providencePROVIDENCEFresenius Medical Care5
Wakefield dialysis centerWakefieldAmerican Renal Associates5
Dialysis center of tivertonTIVERTONAmerican Renal Associates5
Dialysis center of pawtucketPAWTUCKETAmerican Renal Associates5
Fmc pawtucketPAWTUCKETFresenius Medical Care5
Fresenius medical care of warwickWARWICKFresenius Medical Care4
Dialysis center of woonsocketWOONSOCKETAmerican Renal Associates4
Dialysis center of east providenceEAST PROVIDENCEAmerican Renal Associates4
Dialysis center of west warwickWARWICKAmerican Renal Associates3
Davita north providence renal centerNorth ProvidenceDaVita3
Dialysis center of johnstonJOHNSTONAmerican Renal Associates3
Fresenius kidney care lincolnLINCOLNFresenius Medical Care3
The dialysis center of rhode island hospitalPROVIDENCEIndependent3
Dialysis center of rhode island hospital - warren avenueEAST PROVIDENCEIndependent3
Dialysis center of providencePROVIDENCEAmerican Renal Associates2

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