Phoebe Putney Health System
Legal name: Phoebe Sumter Medical Center Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 263975185
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Americus, GA, USA
- Phone
- 2299246011
- Rating
- 69
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Hospitals and Related Primary Medical Care Facilities
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $133,367,874
- Expenses
- $124,676,238
- Assets
- $199,066,500
- Liabilities
- $12,669,179
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
20 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CARLYLE WALTON (CEO PSMC)
Highest reported compensation
- SCOTT STEINER (BD MBR PPHS): $2,238,940 total reported compensation
- BRIAN CHURCH (BD MBR/PPHS): $1,473,567 total reported compensation
- DAWN BENSON (SVP- GENERAL): $1,005,240 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 empower every member of the phoebe family to safeguard the health of our communities - embracing a culture that delivers great patient experiences, innovative treatments, and access to superior care.
What it reported doing in 2024
To be the leading provider of quality, cost effective, patient- centered health care services to residents of the community, regardless of ability to pay, psmc pursues its mission through a patient-centered environment of care reflecting high standards and promoting a balance of professional preparation and service, continuous improvement based on our core values of safety, community, compassion, service and commitment.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 91% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 65
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 62
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 71.1%; rating input score 71
- Program expense ratio: 77.6%; rating input score 78
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 21st 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: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 63.6%; rating input score 64; 18th 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: 6.5%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.6; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.8%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 11 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 71.1% of revenue deployed · 77.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $96.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $2.2M · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $6.8M reported
- Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 11 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.