North Dakota ›Bismarck

Baptist Health & Rehab

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

3400 Nebraska Drive, Bismarck, ND 58503 (opens Google Maps) · Burleigh County · (701) 223-3040· 140 certified beds · avg 133 residents/day · certified since Jul 1, 1978 · Medicare and Medicaid certified

Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →

Part of chain: CASSIA (16 facilities, chain avg rating 4.4★)

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jul 1, 2026
4
Serious findings on record
most recent Jul 22, 2025
$35,323
Fines, last 3 years
5.16
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

New to these records? How to read an inspection report →

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · how star ratings work →

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jul 22, 2025 · F-0695 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it.

Why it matters: Mistakes in breathing care can quickly become life-threatening for residents who depend on oxygen or equipment.

Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Jul 15, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 23, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Feb 14, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 2, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Dec 20, 2024 (Past Non-Compliance)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 31, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Oct 6, 2023 (Past Non-Compliance)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 14 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated

    The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · from a complaint F-0695

  2. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. F-0693

  3. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. F-0880

View all 14 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jul 22, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0695
Apr 16, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · F-0693
Apr 16, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880
Jan 23, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Jan 23, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609
Jan 2, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · F-0604
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880
Jan 31, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689

Inspection trend by year

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2024
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 3

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202481G ▲
202563J ▲

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

How to file a complaint about care →

3 fines totaling $35,323.

Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.

DateTypeAmount / length
Jul 22, 2025Fine$17,345
Jan 23, 2025Fine$11,190
Jan 2, 2025Fine$6,788

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityNorth Dakota averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 5.16
North Dakota average: 5.15
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.74
North Dakota average: 1.09
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.68
North Dakota average: 4.43
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityNorth Dakota avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)5.165.153.95top 49% in North Dakota; top 11% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.741.090.69bottom 16% in North Dakota; top 32% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.684.433.50top 41% in North Dakota; top 10% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.380.590.48bottom 16% in North Dakota; bottom 47% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)49.348.845.8top 46% in North Dakota; bottom 39% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)36.040.342.9top 48% in North Dakota; top 40% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 5.09, RN 0.73, weekend 4.62.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.09 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.

Quality measures: assessments & claims

Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.

Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Baptist Health & Rehab. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.

Calculate a stay from a quote you receive

Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.

Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.

Before you compare prices

  • Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
  • Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
  • Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.

Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price

Who owns this facility

How to read ownership records →

Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →

Non profit - Church related

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Elim Care INCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%11/26/2009
Berg, DeannaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2019
Cassia ServicesOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2020
Dahl, RobertIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE11/26/2009
Grosz, GeraldIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE07/11/2013
Grubb, DarrelIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/10/2013
Grupp, JamesIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/09/2009
Just, MichaelIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/23/2020
Kern, MatthewIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE02/28/2019
Malard, MaysilIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE03/29/2011
Sotebeer, DennisIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2016
Tangedahl, GuyIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2007
Wright, BrianIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/23/2020
Youngquist, KathrynIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2009

All 14 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Other facilities in the same chain

CMS lists this facility under the chain Cassia — 16 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 15 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

  • "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "How do you decide when a feeding tube is truly needed, and how do staff care for residents who have one?"
  • "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
  • "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
  • "What is your policy on physical restraints, and what alternatives do you try first?"
  • "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
  • "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
  • "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
  • "CMS reports 49% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 14 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
  • "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
St Gabriel's Community1.5 miBismarck, ND★★★★★4/5
St Vincent's - a Prospera Community1.9 miBismarck, ND★☆☆☆☆1/5abuseSFF
Good Samaritan Society Augusta Place a Prospera Co1.9 miBismarck, ND★★★★★4/5
Missouri Slope2.2 miBismarck, ND★★★★☆3/5
Good Samaritan Society Miller Pointe a Prospera Co5.4 miMandan, ND★★★☆☆2/5
Sunset Drive - a Prospera Community7.6 miMandan, ND★☆☆☆☆1/5abuseSFF
Dakota Alpha7.6 miMandan, ND★★★★★5/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Bismarck →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 355058.

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details