Osumount Carmel Health Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311654603
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Columbus, OH, USA
Phone
6145464000
Rating
27
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Health Systems

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,907,547
Expenses
$0
Assets
$25,401,981
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JAY ANDERSON (TRUSTEE): $2,194,300 total reported compensation
  • LORRAINE LUTTON (TRUSTEE THROUGH 6/24): $1,903,502 total reported compensation
  • TAUANA MCDONALD (TRUSTEE; CHAIR): $909,604 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 build better health care in madison county, Ohio and the surrounding communities by providing additional health care resources and improved access to specialized medical services.

What it reported doing in 2024

Osu/mount carmel health alliance is an organization formed by the Ohio state university (osu), an instrumentality of the state of Ohio which operates the Ohio state university medical center, and mount carmel health system (mchs), a tax-exempt health care system. Osu and mchs recognized that the health care delivery environment is prompting the formation of a variety of merged, combined and/or cooperative health care delivery networks and systems. Such cooperative undertakings represent collaborative efforts of health care providers to better administer, manage, provide and plan for the delivery of health care services. In response to these environmental factors, osu and mchs formed the health alliance to achieve the following objectives: a. Enhance the ability of osu and mchs to respond to the health care needs of the communities they serve by combining their capabilities, resources and services to facilitate health care delivery throughout the central Ohio area; b. Reduce the cost of health care services to the communities served, in part by elimination of duplicate health care technologies, services and programs within communities; c. Respond efficiently to the opportunities to develop health care networks and systems, particularly through collaborative and cooperative efforts among the osu-mount carmel health alliance (health alliance) and other potential partners in the central Ohio area.the health alliance and its related entities provide services intended to benefit the poor and underserved, including those persons who cannot afford health insurance because of inadequate resources and/or are uninsured or underinsured. The health alliance strives to enhance the health status of the communities in which it operates.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 16
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: Limited
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: Limited
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 30.1% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.1% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed
  • Governance: 0 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2.2M · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 10 of 10 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.