Intermountain Health
Legal name: Intermountain Health Care Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 870269232
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Salt Lake City, UT, USA
- Phone
- (801) 442-2000
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Group Health Practice (Health Maintenance Organizations)
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $231,589,074
- Expenses
- $232,341,013
- Assets
- $7,663,912,728
- Liabilities
- $7,353,025,047
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
42 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ROBERT W ALLEN (TRUSTEE/PRES/CEO)
- ROBERT DOUGLAS GREALLY (TELLICA PRESIDENT/CMO)
- JAY ZERWEKH (CASTELL CEO)
- NATE JONES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- BRAD ISAACSON (TELLICA PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS)
Highest reported compensation
- ROBERT W ALLEN (TRUSTEE/PRES/CEO): $9,715,356 total reported compensation
- NANNETTE BERENSEN (EVP/COO): $4,083,946 total reported compensation
- JAMES P VALIN MD (EVP/CHIEF CLINICAL OFFICER): $3,539,272 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Helping people live the healthiest lives possible. See schedule o.
What it reported doing in 2024
Intermountain health care, inc. Promoted community health by coordinating the activities for the affiliated entities that comprise the intermountain health care, inc. Health system. This centralized management provides for consistent, high quality, cost-effective and compassionate healthcare management and medical services for the communities served.see schedule o for continuation.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 88% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 64
- Transparency & Controls: 61
- Accountability: 87
- Sustainability: 42
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 68.9%; rating input score 69
- Program expense ratio: 75.6%; rating input score 76
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
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: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -0.3%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 32.99; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.96; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 8.4%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 45.6% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 34.6% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 33.1% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 6 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 68.9% of revenue deployed · 75.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 16 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $175.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $9.7M · 42 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.3M reported
- Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 91 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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.