Aspirus Health
Legal name: Aspirus Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 391328331
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Wausau, WI, US
- Phone
- (800) 283-2881
- Rating
- 61
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $47,088,956
- Expenses
- $322,508
- Assets
- $1,834,574,094
- Liabilities
- $500,985,240
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
32 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MATTHEW HEYWOOD (BOARD MEMBER/PRESIDENT & CEO ASPIRUS)
- JENNIFER REDMAN-SCHELL (SVP & PRESIDENT-AMG)
- JESSE TISCHER (SVP & PRESIDENT-AWH (FORMER))
Highest reported compensation
- MATTHEW HEYWOOD (BOARD MEMBER/PRESIDENT & CEO ASPIRUS): $4,230,174 total reported compensation
- SIDNEY SCZYGELSKI (SVP-SPECIAL PROJECTS/FORMER CFO): $1,508,031 total reported compensation
- MICHAEL HOLZHUETER (SVP-CHIEF HR OFFICER): $1,016,165 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Treat each person in the best way possible.
What it reported doing in 2024
To provide health care services to patients regardless of their ability to pay. Aspirus, inc. Provides care to patients who meet certain criteria under its community care policy without charge. The estimated cost of providing care under this policy aggregated to approximately $13,747,000 in fy 2025. (this cost includes aspirus, inc. And its consolidated affiliates.) the cost was calculated by multiplying the ratio of cost to gross charges for aspirus, inc. By the gross uncompensated charges associated with providing the community care.as part of its patient services, aspirus, inc. Also provides services to beneficiaries of the medicare and medicaid programs which often reimburse the organization based on predetermined fee schedules which are often below the cost of providing care to these individuals. These programs provide health care services to a large portion of the elderly, low income, and disabled members of the community who need access to high quality care.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Investment-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 21
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 82
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 64.3%; rating input score 64
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 97.6%; rating input score 98; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 99.3%; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5,688.46; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4,909%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -40.4% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.3% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 64.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 12 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $207K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $4.2M · 32 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $39.8M reported
- Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 29 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 38 filed related-organization links
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.