Baker County Medical Services
Legal name: Baker County Medical Services Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 593202547
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Macclenny, FL, US
- Phone
- (904) 259-3151
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Hospital, General
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $41,456,104
- Expenses
- $38,720,548
- Assets
- $36,658,915
- Liabilities
- $12,383,071
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- TIFFANY VARNADOE (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- TIFFANY VARNADOE (CEO): $326,892 total reported compensation
- JEFF CHILSON (CFO (12/24)): $167,109 total reported compensation
- JAMES BRAND (DIRECTOR OF): $161,265 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide the highest quality of care in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible to all residents in our region – regardless of ability to pay.
What it reported doing in 2024
Baker county medical services operates ed fraser memorial hospital, w. Frank wells nursing home, and baker rural health clinic which provide a wide range of healthcare services to the citizens of baker county and the surrounding area.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 94% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 75
- Transparency & Controls: 84
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 50
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 82.3%; rating input score 82
- Program expense ratio: 87.7%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.6%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.95; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.2%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 82.3% of revenue deployed · 87.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $33.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $327K · 13 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3M reported
- Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.