MSU Health Care

Legal name: Msu Health Care Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
832236308
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
East Lansing, MI, USA
Phone
(844) 678-7883
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health Treatment Facilities, Primarily Outpatient

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$122,679,976
Expenses
$125,248,629
Assets
$93,261,257
Liabilities
$80,313,881

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Seth Ciabotti (Chief Executive Officer - PART YEAR)

Highest reported compensation

  • Aron Sousa (Vice-Chair): $780,458 total reported compensation
  • Thomas Jeitschko (Director): $582,195 total reported compensation
  • Joel Greenberg (Treasurer): $569,763 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 provide exceptional, patient-centered health care while advancing medical education and research through Michigan State University's academic resources.

What it reported doing in 2024

Msu health care is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation created to be the clinical enterprise of Michigan state university's college of human medicine, college of nursing and college of osteopathic medicine. Our focus is to provide healing and caring, form joint ventures and partnerships and leverage our expansive clinical research and expert educational strengths for our patients. We remain dedicated to the land-grant mission and values of msu, a member of the association of american universities and a top 100 research institution.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 92% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, 0% for grants, and 35% for affiliated organizations.

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 32
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.5%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 88.4%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th 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: -2.1%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.74; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.86; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.4%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 26.7% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 24.9% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 31.7% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 90.5% of revenue deployed · 88.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $110.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $780K · 20 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $5.1M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 36 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.