Musc Health Partners

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
813987037
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Charleston, SC, USA
Phone
843-792-2300
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$49,363,615
Expenses
$49,574,961
Assets
$9,089,906
Liabilities
$8,988,945

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Eugene Hong MD (CEO)
  • Jonathan Edwards (Interim President & Vice President)
  • Jay Hinesley (CEO Florence)

Highest reported compensation

  • Matt Severance (Director): $900,100 total reported compensation
  • Eugene Hong MD (CEO): $895,395 total reported compensation
  • Christian Streck (Director): $858,654 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 excellence in patient care, teaching and research in an environment that is respectful of others, adaptive to change, and accountable for outcomes.

What it reported doing in 2024

Operates the health care system facilities. Uma is a physician practice for musc clinical faculty that facilitates the provision of inpatient and outpatient services in furtherance and for the benefit of musc. The main musc campus is located in downtown charleston, South Carolina, but educates and serves individuals primarily throughout the state. The corporation facilitates the deployment of clinical resources into communities outside of the charleston main campus of the health system. Continued on schedule o

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 42
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.8%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.3%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.4%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.99; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.2%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 57.6% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 57.2% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 38.5% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 99.8% of revenue deployed · 99.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 6 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $49.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $900K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.