Saint Lukes Hospital of Garnett Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742849611
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Garnett, KS, USA
Phone
7854483131
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Health Systems

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$32,519,772
Expenses
$34,377,789
Assets
$12,844,499
Liabilities
$10,400,182

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Anderson County Hospital is a member of Saint Luke's Health System. As a faith-based county hospital, Anderson's mission is to enhance the physical, mental, and spiritual health of the patients it serves. As a member of Saint Luke's Health System, Anderson partners with patients, physicians, payers, employees, and the communities it serves to provide health care services.

What it reported doing in 2023

Anderson county hospital has been designated by the state of Kansas and medicare as a critical access hospital. All program service expenses were incurred in furtherance of our mission, which is to ensure high quality healthcare in a caring environment for the communities we serve. In 2023, there were 10,200 patient days, 7,800 rural health clinic visits, 3,600 emergency room visits, 27,400 outpatient visits and 1,100 ambulance calls. We provided un-insured or indigent area children with 100 vaccinations. As a nonprofit, rural critical access hospital, saint luke's hospital of garnett is committed to serving all who seek our services regardless of their socioeconomic status. The hospital participates in the medicaid and medicare programs and has a financial assistance policy for assisting people without adequate means to pay for their care. The hospital also provides health related activities and services in support of the community including providing an annual breast cancer awareness campaign and clinic and community wide health, weight, first aid and cpr classes. In addition, we provide a health careers class at the high school and are a work study site for high school students interested in health related careers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 96% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 65
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.7%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 84.8%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th 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: 75.9%; rating input score 76; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 55.6%; rating input score 56; 9th 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: -5.7%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.81; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.7% of revenue deployed · 84.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $29.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.1M · 24 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.6M reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 32 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: Independent voting board scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.