Dept of Medicine Medical Service Group at Suny Health Science Cntr at Syr Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
161475278
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Syracuse, NY, USA
Phone
3154644480
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Group Health Practice (Health Maintenance Organizations)

Reported finances

Revenue
$114,730,981
Expenses
$113,837,164
Assets
$34,959,788
Liabilities
$26,782,270

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SRIRAM S NARSIPUR (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • HOUSAM HEGAZY (ASSISTANT PROFESSOR): $674,734 total reported compensation
  • SRIRAM S NARSIPUR (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR): $606,387 total reported compensation
  • MATTHEW G GLIDDEN (DIRECTOR): $595,228 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To improve the health of the communities we serve through education, biomedical research and healthcare

What it reported doing in 2018

Upstate gastroenterology, llc is a single-member llc owned 100% by dept. Of medicine medical service group. Their mission is to provide a practice site for the academic gastroenterologists at upstate medical university to do procedures. Being certified as an ambulatory surgery center subjects the site to higher department of health standards and therefore better care.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 26
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.1%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 99.9%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 67.8%; rating input score 68; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.8%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.77; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.4%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.1% of revenue deployed · 99.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $113.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $675K · 10 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $23.5M reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2010 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.