Texas Health Huguley Surgery Center LLC

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821289045
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Burleson, TX, USA
Phone
8176154400
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health Treatment Facilities, Primarily Outpatient

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,635,163
Expenses
$5,267,915
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Johnson Penny (Chairman/President/CEO (beg 6/20))

Highest reported compensation

  • McWhorter Rick (Board Mgr (end 7/20)/THR EVP & CFO): $1,296,300 total reported compensation
  • King James Kirk (Board Mgr/THR EVP Zone Op Leader): $1,288,996 total reported compensation
  • Johnson Penny (Chairman/President/CEO (beg 6/20)): $1,078,989 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our Mission is to extend the healing ministry of Christ by identifying and meeting the health needs of our community, providing quality, customer oriented and cost effective services, and ensuring access to those services.

What it reported doing in 2020

The primary mission of Texas Health Huguley Surgery Center, LLC is the operation of a free-standing ambulatory surgery center that provides broad access to outpatient surgical services through various programs, including physician participation in Medicare, Medicaid, and by providing indigent care. There were 2,641 patient encounters during the current year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 89% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 44
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.1%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 94.9%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 20%; rating input score 20; 6th 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: 31%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.1%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 28.8% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -48% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.1% of revenue deployed · 94.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.3M · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $559K reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2018 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 74 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 20/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.