WVU Medicine Thomas Hospitals

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
550404900
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Charleston, WV, US
Phone
304-369-1230
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hospital, General

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$425,808,932
Expenses
$388,593,852
Assets
$329,209,685
Liabilities
$166,925,929

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

Leadership & pay

33 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Albert Wright Jr (President/CEO WVUHS)
  • J Gregory Rosencrance (President/CEO Thomas Hospitals)
  • Luke Martin MD (Director/Medical Staff President)
  • Daniel J Lauffer (Former President/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Albert Wright Jr (President/CEO WVUHS): $2,726,278 total reported compensation
  • J Gregory Rosencrance (President/CEO Thomas Hospitals): $922,471 total reported compensation
  • Tom Takubo (VP Provider Relations - WVUHS): $900,756 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 deliver patient-centered care using advanced technology and evidence-based practices, working collaboratively with multidisciplinary care teams to achieve the best possible outcomes while supporting the health and well-being of the communities we serve.

What it reported doing in 2024

Services provided by the hospital for 2024 included 70,379 inpatient days and 268,201 outpatient visits which includes 33,773 ER visits. The hospital provides care to patients who meet certain criteria under its charity care policy without charge or at amounts less than its established rates. Charges forgone for charity amounted to 3,134,957. The hospital provided community education activities and sponsors free health screening and wellness programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.5%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 87.2%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 21st 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: 85.4%; rating input score 85; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.7%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.85; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.51; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.8%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 79.5% of revenue deployed · 87.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 15 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $339M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2.7M · 33 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $25.4M reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 27 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 51 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.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.