Mark Twain Medical Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680127677
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
2097543521
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hospital, General

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$91,192,347
Expenses
$89,857,813
Assets
$89,924,068
Liabilities
$42,037,023

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOUGLAS P ARCHER (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • BENJAMIN BJ PREDUM (DIRECTOR): $1,119,665 total reported compensation
  • DONALD J GRECO MD (PHYSICIAN PAIN MANAGEMENT): $949,384 total reported compensation
  • ROGER P ROGALSKI MD (PHYSICIAN): $887,050 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Mark twain medical center is committed to furthering the charitable and community-based health care purposes, mission, vision and core values. Through teamwork and innovation, faith and compassion, advocacy and action, we endeavor every day to keep our patients happy, healthy, and whole.

What it reported doing in 2024

The hospital provides routine patient care in private and semi-private rooms as well as various inpatient and outpatient ancillary services such as x-ray, lab, emergency room, etc. During the fiscal year 2025, 1,005 patients were admitted to the facility and 91,959 outpatient visits were recorded including visits at our 4 rural health clinics.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 95% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 40
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.9%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 84.1%; rating input score 84
  • 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: 97.6%; rating input score 98; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 20%; rating input score 20; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.5%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.47; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.9%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.9% of revenue deployed · 84.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $75.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.1M · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.4M reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 338 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 20/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.