Atrium Health Floyd

Legal name: Polk Medical Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
453957368
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Rome, GA, USA
Phone
770-748-2500
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health Treatment Facilities, Primarily Outpatient

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$61,245,755
Expenses
$41,233,208
Assets
$134,975,991
Liabilities
$6,870,456

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • KURT STUENKEL (BOARD MEMBER, PRES/SEC): $2,070,494 total reported compensation
  • TOMMY MANNING (SVP, CHF LEGAL OFF & SEC): $794,518 total reported compensation
  • MATTHEW GORMAN (VP CORP/NETWORK SVC): $709,654 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Atrium health floyd polk medical center is a 25-bed critical access hospital whose mission is to improve health, elevate hope, and advance healing to the community it serves.

What it reported doing in 2024

The filing organization operates a 25-bed, critical access hospital that offers health care services to polk county and northern haralson county with support from atrium health floyd health system's comprehensive network of care. The hospital provides a level iv traumacenter, inpatient rehabilitation, imaging, lab work, and infusion therapy. During 2024, atrium health floyd polk medical center had approximately 8,000 patient days and nearly 27,000 emergency room visits.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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 total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.8%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 81.2%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 8th 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: 99%; rating input score 99; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 32.7%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.27; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.8%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.2% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 58.8% of revenue deployed · 81.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $33.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2.1M · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $2.7M reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 20 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 15 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.

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

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.