University Hospitals
Legal name: University Hospitals Health System Inc Group Return
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 900059117
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Shaker Heights, OH, USA
- Phone
- 1-866-844-2273
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Health Systems
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,946,385,392
- Expenses
- $5,896,018,591
- Assets
- $3,301,758,246
- Liabilities
- $984,771,301
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
127 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- MEGERIAN CLIFF MD (SEE SCHEDULE O): $4,448,841 total reported compensation
- SNOWBERGER THOMAS D (SEE SCHEDULE O): $2,531,388 total reported compensation
- HINCHEY PAUL R MD (SEE SCHEDULE O): $2,025,921 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
University Hospitals has been on a mission to heal, teach and discover, providing personalized, compassionate care; medical discovery and breakthroughs; and high-quality, affordable care close to home. University Hospitals is a national leader, recognized for playing a vital role in helping to create a better future for our communities. Founded as a charity hospital for the sick and disabled in 1866, University Hospitals soon grew to include a children’s hospital and numerous community hospitals and care centers. Together, they formed University Hospitals, a mission-driven, nonprofit organization dedicated to enhancing health and well-being. Rooted in Northeast Ohio, University Hospitals has a legacy of engaging with the communities we serve to improve overall health, beyond medical care, in economic, environmental and social ways. The cooperative, caring approach that shaped so much...
What it reported doing in 2024
See schedule o.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 92% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 83
- Transparency & Controls: 91
- Accountability: 74
- Sustainability: 40
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 93.4%; rating input score 93
- Program expense ratio: 94.1%; rating input score 94
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 55%; rating input score 55; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.8%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.56; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.4%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 93.4% of revenue deployed · 94.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 93 of 169 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.5B in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $4.4M · 127 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 38 of 40 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 12 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 37 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 45 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.
- Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 55/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.