Healthie Georgia Corporation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
470996135
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Clayton, GA, USA
Phone
7067820764
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hospitals and Related Primary Medical Care Facilities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,687,128
Expenses
$2,609,552
Assets
$791,459
Liabilities
$161,476

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • MARK RENFRO (EXECUTIVE DI): $174,600 total reported compensation
  • ELIZABETH MCKEON (CONTRACTOR): $164,000 total reported compensation
  • CONNIE ALEXANDER (SECRETARY): $98,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Healthie Georgia corporation is a network of rural Georgia hospitals and their physician communities working to improve patient care through health information technology. The healthie Georgia member hospitals together are applying for rural healthcare grant and loan opportunities available to non-profit collaborative networks.

What it reported doing in 2024

The hrsa 21-027 rural health care services outreach grant program has a four-year performance period with up to 250,000 per year. The overarching goals of the outreach program are to expand the delivery of healthcare services to include new and enhanced services exclusively in rural communities; deliver healthcare services through a strong consortium in which every consortium member organzation is actively involved in and engaged in the planning and delivery of services; utilize community engagement and evidence-based or innovative, evidence-informed models in the delivery of healthcare services; and improve population health and demonstrate health outcomes and sustainability. The hrsa 21-082 evidence based telehealth network program has a five-year performance period up to 350,000 per year. The two-fold purpose of this award is to demonstrate how health networks can increase access to healthcare services utilizing telehealth technolgies and to conduct evaluations of those efforts to establish an evidence base for assessing the effectiveness of telehealth care for patients, providers, and payers. The hrsa 21-088 rural community opioid response-implementation program has a three-year performance period up to 333,333 per year. This grant is a multi-year initiative by the health resources and services administration aimed at reducing the morbidity and mortality of substance use disorder (sud), including opioid use disorder (oud), in high-risk communities. This funding opportunity has advanced rcorp's overall goal by strengthening and expanding sud/oud prevention, treatments, and recovery services to enhance rural residents' ability to access treatment and move towards recovery. The hrsa 22-061 rural community opioid response-mental behavioral health program has a four-year performance period up to 500,000 per year. This rcorp grant is a community-based grant program aimed at improving rural behavioral healthcare service delivery to include increasing access to and utilization of prevention, treatment, and recovery services to improve the care for those affected by behavioral health conditions which may include substance use and mental health disorders. Rural communities in south Georgia are facing numerous barriers that prevent individuals from seeking and effectively completing treatment for sud/oud and cod. One goal of this grant is to increase the effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of health care networks, reduce health disparities, and improve access to health for the underserved communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 86% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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 the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.2%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 85.6%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.9%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.3; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.8%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 33.8% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 30.1% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 28.7% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.2% of revenue deployed · 85.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $175K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.