Hartford Hospital

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
060646668
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Hartford, CT, US
Phone
860.545.5000
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hospital, General

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,936,696,079
Expenses
$2,736,206,900
Assets
$3,028,312,938
Liabilities
$958,119,328

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

Leadership & pay

33 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jeffrey Flaks (CEO, HHC)
  • Cheryl Ficara (Director & President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jeffrey Flaks (CEO, HHC): $4,799,936 total reported compensation
  • Bimal Patel (Former Director and Officer): $1,693,030 total reported compensation
  • Ajay Kumar MD (Former Key Employee): $1,540,215 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 improve the health and healing of all. In Hartford HealthCare, only the best will do. We work as a team to bring experience, advanced technology and best practices to bear in providing the highest-quality care for our patients and families. We devote ourselves to continuous improvement, excellence, professionalism and innovation in our work. INTEGRITY Our actions tell the world what Hartford HealthCare is and what we stand for. We act ethically and responsibly in everything we do and hold ourselves accountable for our behavior. We bring respect, openness and honesty to our encounters with patients, families and coworkers and support the well-being of the communities we serve.

What it reported doing in 2024

During FY25, Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute expanded and refined community-focused cancer support services addressing priority community health needs identified through the Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA), including behavioral health, social determinants of health, nutrition, financial toxicity, caregiver support, and access to specialty supportive care.In FY25, services reached thousands of patients through psychosocial counseling, social work navigation, nutrition care, financial counseling, and peer support programs. Expanded staffing and virtual modalities improved access, while ongoing evaluation ensured alignment with identified community health needs.Psycho-oncology: Quality of Life Program (QOL): CHNA alignment: Behavioral health access, emotional support, continuity of care*1367 completed appointmentsHighlight: QOL services ensured continued access to evidence-based psychosocial oncology care, particularly for patients facing transportation, geographic, or work-related barriers.Expanded access integrating a post-doc fellow (.4FTE), offering non-billable services through training program to reduce barriers. Provided clinical supervision for psycho-oncology to support Ph.D work. Services continue to reach geographically dispersed patients and lower-barrier populations through telehealth.Oncology Social Work: CHNA alignment: Social determinants of health, financial distress, care coordinationSocial workers addressed housing insecurity, transportation barriers, employment loss, caregiver strain, and financial distress, supporting equitable cancer care access across regions.* 2,216 referralsTotal Referral Comparison (Selected Regions)Region FY24 FY25 % ChangeHartford 1,013 779 -23%Central & NW 355 415 +17%HOCC/CHH 251 489 +95%East 311 421 +35%SVMC 352 112 -68%Overall, FY25 showed better regional alignment of services to community need, particularly in underserved and growing regions.Highlights: Created referral order to streamline access to services across the system. Increased staffing by 1 FTE (CENTRAL).Oncology Registered Dietitian Services: CHNA alignment: Nutrition insecurity, treatment tolerance, chronic disease managementNutrition services supported treatment adherence, symptom management, and food securityparticularly for patients experiencing financial or functional vulnerability.* 4,336 patient encountersTotal Patient Volume (Assessments + Follow-ups)Site FY24 FY25 ChangeMidstate Medical Center 1,281 1,084 -197Hartford Hospital 1,405 1,434 +29The Hospital of Central CT 912 969 +57Backus Hospital 401 621 +220Charlotte Hospital 0 228 +228 Highlight: Increased staffing by 1.2FTEs (1 FF& .2 HTFD)Backus and Charlotte hospitals both showed substantial growth, addressing prior regional gaps. Hartford Hospital volume growth reflects FTE expansion from 0.6 0.8.Financial Counseling/Coordination: CHNA alignment: Financial hardship, insurance access, health equityFinancial counseling mitigated cancer-related financial distress and supported patient navigation through insurance, assistance programs, and care affordability.FY25 Status:* Financial counseling services expanded in Central/NW, Hartford, and Fairfield regions* No standardized Epic workflow or metrics, limiting quantifiable FY comparison at this time Integration achieved through collaboration with: * Financial Aid* Authorization departments* Oncology care teamsHighlight: Increased staffing by 1FTE (FF)Support Groups & Educational series: CHNA alignment: Mental health, caregiver support, patient educationSupport groups reduced isolation, enhanced coping skills, and delivered disease-specific education to patients and caregivers across HHC's service area.* 505 participantsHighlights: Added 2 new support groups- Head & Neck Support Group and Lymphedema Support Group (partnership with Rehab to facilitate)* 10 condition-specific and caregiver groups offered* Virtual and hybrid formats enhanced accessibilityTopics included: * Breast, prostate, GI, gynecolog

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 87
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.9%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 93.5%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.33 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 76.9%; rating input score 77; 25th 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: 6.8%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.11; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.2%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 86.9% of revenue deployed · 93.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.6B in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $4.8M · 33 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $144.8M reported
  • Consistency: 41 of 41 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 13 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 45 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 97 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 — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.