Columbus Community Hospital
Legal name: Columbus Community Hospital Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 470542043
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Columbus, NE, USA
- Phone
- 4025623357
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Hospital, General
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $184,724,924
- Expenses
- $170,473,359
- Assets
- $236,038,460
- Liabilities
- $16,890,605
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
23 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MICHAEL HANSEN (PRESIDENT/CEO/SECRETARY)
Highest reported compensation
- MICHAEL HANSEN (PRESIDENT/CEO/SECRETARY): $1,002,443 total reported compensation
- MATTHEW PIEPER (PHYSICIAN): $856,895 total reported compensation
- ANTHONY KRUEGER (PHYSICIAN): $833,684 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Improve the health of the communities we serve. flyerLocated in the heart of Nebraska, Columbus Community Hospital (CCH) is a community-owned, not-for-profit hospital in Columbus, NE, that brings top-level health care close to home. The people of Platte County and the surrounding counties appreciate the opportunity to see both primary care providers and specialists without needing to travel to a larger city. CCH is led by a local board of directors, and the hospital has a staff that includes a president/CEO, five vice presidents, a medical staff of more than 50 active members and more than 900 employees. It also has the support of more than 260 volunteers. The hospital's facility is certified for swing beds and 14 ambulatory o.
What it reported doing in 2024
See schedule o
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 91% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 80
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 60
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 89.3%; rating input score 89
- Program expense ratio: 97.8%; rating input score 98
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 6 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 15.4%; rating input score 15; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 41st 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: 7.7%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.38; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.6%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site
- Where the money goes: 89.3% of revenue deployed · 97.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $166.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1M · 23 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $15M reported
- Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 9 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: 12 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 6 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 15/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.