Ohio Hospitals Group Rated Workers Compensation Program Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311314404
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Columbus, OH, USA
Phone
6142217614
Rating confidence
Limited

Reported finances

Revenue
$238,594
Expenses
$8,164
Assets
$3,240,468
Liabilities
$1,813

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Christina Weyand (Chair/President (Through Jan 2024))
  • James Guliano (Chair/President (Beg December 2024))

Highest reported compensation

  • Mary Gallagher (Former Secretary): $584,809 total reported compensation
  • James Guliano (Chair/President (Beg December 2024)): $361,457 total reported compensation
  • Kelsey Brown (Secretary (beg December 2024)): $165,447 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The primary purpose of the Ohio Hospitals Group Rated Workers Compensation Program, Inc. is to develop and implement programs that will promote a safe working environment and reduce health care costs.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Ohio Hospital Association (OHA) provides two workers' compensation programs administered by Sedgwick. OHA-sponsored workers' compensation programs include a traditional group experience rating program and a group retrospective rating program for private sector hospital members. In its traditional group rating program, member hospitals receive up-front discounts on premiums owed to the Bureau of Workers' Compensation (BWC). These premium savings are justified due to better-than-average claims experience. In its group retrospective rating program, a group savings program, participating hospitals initially pay their full individually-rated premium to BWC and then earn retroactive rebates based on the overall performance of the group. The incentive with "group retro" plans is to maintain and enhance safety programs to prevent or minimize work-related injuries and aggressively manage the cost of claims that do occur. These risk management activities directly impact the ultimate savings achieved by those participating in the program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 28
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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; 7th 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: 96.6%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 396.92; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4,741.9%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -13.2% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $585K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 10 of 10 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 4 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.