Mt Graham Regional Medical Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237094247
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Safford, AZ, USA
Phone
9283484000
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hospital, General

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$122,856,692
Expenses
$103,830,278
Assets
$149,810,219
Liabilities
$19,565,629

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Roland Knox (President & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Rex Bryce (Orthopedic Surgeon): $1,149,660 total reported compensation
  • Mansur Khan (Gastroenterology Physician): $1,019,221 total reported compensation
  • Nicholas Elkins (Pain Management Physician): $972,530 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We are caring people committed to improving community health.

What it reported doing in 2024

Mt. Graham Regional Medical Center, Inc. is an acute care hospital located in Graham County, Arizona. We are a nonprofit, community-owned and governed facility providing extensive medical services for Graham and Greenlee counties of Arizona. Our services include medical/surgical services, intensive care, obstetrics, emergency services, infusion therapy, chemotherapy, respiratory therapy, laboratory services, radiology, digital mammography, ultrasound, CT scans, MRI scans, and nuclear medicine. (Continued on Schedule O.)In addition to the services provided by the Medical Center, each month the following specialty care clinics are provided on the hospital campus: allergy and immunology; Otolaryngologist (Ear Nose Throat); cardiology; dermatology; oncology; orthopedics; pediatric cardiology; pediatric endocrinology; pediatric pulmonary; kidney, disability; endocrinology; and urology.In 2024, the Medical Center had 4,305 total inpatient days and 139,069 visits.The Medical Center provides health care services to patients who meet certain criteria under its charity care policy without charge or at amounts less than established rates. Since the Hospital does not pursue collection of these amounts, they are not reported as patient service revenue. The estimated cost of providing these services was approximately $330,000 for the year ended December 31, 2024, calculated by multiplying the ratio of cost to gross charges for the Medical Center by the gross uncompensated charges associated with providing charity care to its patients.The Medical Center provides OB/GYN outpatient clinic services to patients that result in a loss from operations. The estimated cost of providing these services was approximately $11,060 for the year ended December 31, 2024, calculated by multiplying the ratio of cost to gross charges for the Medical Center by the gross uncompensated charges associated with providing Obstetrical Labor and Delivery services to its patients.The Medical Center provides Intensive Care services to patients that result in a loss from operations. The estimated cost of providing these services was approximately $19,346 for the year ended December 31, 2024, calculated by multiplying the ratio of cost to gross charges for the Medical Center by the gross uncompensated charges associated with providing Intensive Care services to its patients.The Medical Center provides OB Inpatient services to patients that result in a loss from operations. The estimated cost of providing these services was approximately $24,489 for the year ended December 31, 2024, calculated by multiplying the ratio of cost to gross charges for the Medical Center by the gross uncompensated charges associated with providing Obstetrical Labor and Delivery services to its patients.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 97% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 58
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.3%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 82.3%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 35.7%; rating input score 36; 11th 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: 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: 15.5%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.44; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.6%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.3% of revenue deployed · 82.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $85.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.1M · 24 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $13.7M reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 36/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.