How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Libby Care Center
308 E Third St, Libby, MT 59923 (opens Google Maps) · Lincoln County · (406) 293-6285· 101 certified beds · avg 76 residents/day · certified since Oct 1, 1971 · 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: CASCADIA HEALTHCARE (46 facilities, chain avg rating 3.0★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jun 30, 2025
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Aug 17, 2023
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.37
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
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: 5/5 · 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)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Aug 17, 2023 · 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Aug 17, 2023 · 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): 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: Sep 15, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Aug 17, 2023 · 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Aug 17, 2023 · 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: Sep 15, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 19 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The 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
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. · from a complaint F-0880
The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. F-0578
View all 19 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.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 2, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Jun 30, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Jun 30, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| Jun 30, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · from a complaint · F-0761 |
| Jun 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550 |
| Mar 27, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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 27, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0658 |
| Mar 27, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety. · from a complaint · F-0740 |
| Mar 27, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint · F-0755 |
| Aug 15, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · F-0655 |
| Aug 15, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Aug 17, 2023 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Aug 17, 2023 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Aug 17, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550 |
| Aug 17, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not allow a resident's chosen representative — often a family member or someone with power of attorney — to exercise the resident's rights on their behalf. When a resident can't speak for themselves, their representative steps into that role. · from a complaint · F-0551 |
| Aug 17, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · from a complaint · F-0623 |
| Aug 17, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0658 |
| Aug 17, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving. · from a complaint · F-0660 |
| Aug 17, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. · F-0881 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 4).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2024
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 8 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 8 | 0 | F |
| 2026 | 1 | 0 | D |
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)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityMontana averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.37
Montana average: 4.82
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.57
Montana average: 1.17
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.07
Montana average: 4.26
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Montana avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.37 | 4.82 | 3.95 | bottom 3% in Montana; bottom 30% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.57 | 1.17 | 0.69 | bottom 7% in Montana; bottom 47% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.07 | 4.26 | 3.50 | bottom 10% in Montana; bottom 35% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.40 | 0.71 | 0.48 | bottom 19% in Montana; top 48% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 35.7 | 54.8 | 45.8 | top 6% in Montana; top 26% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 41.7 | 48.3 | 42.9 | top 37% in Montana; top 50% 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 3.01, RN 0.51, weekend 2.75.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.01 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Libby Care Center. 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 →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cascadia HC Group LLC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/05/2025 |
| Cascadia Healthcare LLC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2017 |
| Cascadia Holdco LLC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/05/2025 |
| Cascadia Montana Operations LLC | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2017 |
| Hammond, Owen | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2017 |
| Laforte, Stephen | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/05/2025 |
| Nelson, Timothy | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/05/2025 |
| Cascadia Services LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/23/2025 |
| Cascadia Services LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/23/2025 |
| Hammond, Owen | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2017 |
| Laforte, Stephen | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/05/2025 |
| Libby 308 Realty, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/05/2025 |
| Libby 308 Realty, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/05/2025 |
| Nelson, Timothy | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/05/2025 |
| Sanders, Sarah | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2026 |
| Sanders, Sarah | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2026 |
| White Oak Healthcare Finance LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/11/2022 |
| Youngblood, Betty Jean | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2025 |
| Youngblood, Betty Jean | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/03/2025 |
All 19 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 Cascadia Healthcare — 46 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.
- Mount Ascension Transitional Care of Cascadia — Helena, MT · overall 1/5SFF
- Mountain View of Cascadia — Eureka, MT · overall 5/5
- Bend Transitional Care — Bend, OR · overall 5/5
- Creekside Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia — Eugene, OR · overall 5/5
- Curry Village Health and Rehab of Cascadia — Brookings, OR · overall 1/5abuse
- Fairlawn Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia — Gresham, OR · overall 5/5
- Salem Transitional Care — Salem, OR · overall 2/5
- Secora Rehabilitation of Cascadia — Portland, OR · overall 2/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 45 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "What mental health services do you provide on-site, and who delivers them?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Montana midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 36% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 19 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
This is the only Medicare-certified nursing home within 40 miles. The nearest other one is Mountain View of Cascadia in Eureka, MT — 41 miles away in a straight line.
Straight-line distance is not travel distance. The road route is longer, and in some regions there is no road. Check the actual journey before ruling this option in or out.
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Lincoln, MT — 2 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Mountain View of Cascadia — Eureka, MT · overall 5/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 275040.