Penn Medicine Doylestown Health

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232368197
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Doylestown, PA, USA
Phone
2153452242
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$80,040,294
Expenses
$106,824,570
Assets
$9,744,875
Liabilities
$11,617,747

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES L BREXLER FACHE (DIR-PRES/CEO DOYLESTOWN HEALTH)
  • MATTHEW F COSTELLO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES L BREXLER FACHE (DIR-PRES/CEO DOYLESTOWN HEALTH): $1,594,700 total reported compensation
  • RICHARD Y HIGHBLOOM MD (CARDIOLOGIST): $1,034,752 total reported compensation
  • ANTHONY TRAN (Cardiologist): $843,058 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

People heal best when cared for in their own community.

What it reported doing in 2024

The majority of physicians on the doylestown hospital medical staff are independent practitioners. Doylestown health physicians is a subsidiary of uphs and employs physicians for necessary community-based services that might not otherwise be available. Doylestown health physicians includes several primary care practices, hospitalists, general surgeons, heart and vascular surgeons, cardiologists, neurologists, urologists, gastroenterologists, gynecologic oncologists and others.

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 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most filed governance safeguards are in place. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 4
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 98%; 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: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 71.4%; rating input score 71; 22nd 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: -33.5%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.09; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.19; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.8%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 98% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 7 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $104.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.6M · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1M reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 86 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.