MontanaColumbus

Beartooth Rehabilitation and Nursing LLC

350 W Pike Ave, Columbus, MT 59019 · Stillwater County · certified beds · avg 42 residents/day · certified since Dec 18, 2024

Abuse citation flag (CMS)SFF Candidate

Part of chain: THE CHARLY BELLO FAMILY, THE MAZE FAMILY, THE SWAIN FAMILY, & WALTER MYERS (19 facilities, chain avg rating 1.7★)

The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
4
Serious findings on record
$50,592
Fines, last 3 years
3.75
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5

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 self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Feb 10, 2026 · 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 (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.

Corrected: Apr 27, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Sep 4, 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 (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.

Corrected: Oct 3, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Sep 4, 2025 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Oct 3, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Sep 4, 2025 · F-0658 · triggered by a complaint

The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.

Why it matters: Care that falls below professional standards can directly harm a resident's health and recovery.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Oct 3, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (43)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Feb 10, 2026▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Feb 10, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Feb 10, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Feb 10, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents.
Feb 10, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a proper governing body legally responsible for its policies and operations, or that body failed to appoint a properly licensed administrator to manage the facility.
Feb 10, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies.
Feb 10, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them.
Feb 10, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Feb 10, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Feb 10, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Feb 10, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Feb 10, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 10, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not properly inform residents or their representatives about arbitration agreements — contracts that give up the right to sue in court — including their right to refuse to sign.
Feb 10, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away.
Feb 10, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint
Feb 10, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines.
Feb 10, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle.
Feb 10, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline.
Feb 10, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide appropriate treatment and services to residents with a mental health condition, difficulty adjusting emotionally, or a history of trauma or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Feb 10, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Sep 4, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Sep 4, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Sep 4, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint
Sep 4, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them. · from a complaint
Sep 4, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility's quality committee — the internal group responsible for finding and fixing care problems — did not have the required members or did not meet at least every three months. · from a complaint
Sep 4, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · from a complaint
Sep 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Sep 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint
Sep 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way. · from a complaint
Sep 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. · from a complaint
Sep 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · from a complaint
Sep 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Jul 31, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · from a complaint
Jul 31, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. · from a complaint
Jul 31, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint
Dec 5, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines.
Dec 5, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 5, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Dec 5, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 5, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Dec 5, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own.
Dec 5, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 5, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (8 → 18).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202480E
2025153J ▲
2026201J ▲

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)

2 fines totaling $50,592, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

DateTypeAmount / length
Feb 10, 2026Fine$32,988
Feb 10, 2026Payment Denial41 days from Mar 17, 2026
Sep 4, 2025Fine$17,604

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

MeasureThis facilityMontana avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.754.823.95bottom 24% in Montana; bottom 49% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.071.170.69top 48% in Montana; top 13% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.424.263.50bottom 35% in Montana; top 46% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.630.710.48bottom 48% in Montana; top 21% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)0.054.845.8
RN turnover (%)0.048.342.9

Hours are per resident per day, 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 2.95, RN 0.84, weekend 2.68. Staffing rating: 4/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Larsen, KoleIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest10%07/15/2024
White Ash LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest10%02/15/2024
Lake, BrandyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/15/2024
Macewen, JeffreyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/15/2024
Olmstead, StaceyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2026
Olmstead, StaceyIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2026

Questions to ask on your visit

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

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Laurel Health & Rehabilitation Center23.8 miLaurel, MT★☆☆☆☆1/5
St John's Lutheran Home32.8 miBillings, MT★★★★☆3/5
Aspen Meadows Health and Rehabilitation Center33.9 miBillings, MT★★☆☆☆3/5
Skyline Heights Nursing and Rehabilitation34.4 miBillings, MT★☆☆☆☆1/5SFF
Yellowstone River Nursing and Rehabilitation34.5 miBillings, MT★☆☆☆☆1/5
Billings Rehabilitation and Nursing LLC37.9 miBillings, MT★★☆☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Columbus →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 275159.