University of Maryland Medical System
Legal name: University of Maryland Community Medical Group Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 521874111
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Easton, MD, USA
- Phone
- 4108221000
- Rating
- 66
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Ambulatory Health Center, Community Clinic
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $66,542,063
- Expenses
- $88,971,237
- Assets
- $1,072,134
- Liabilities
- $8,346,353
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KENNETH D KOZEL (President and CEO, UMSRH)
Highest reported compensation
- KHALID H KURTOM MD (Physician): $2,645,160 total reported compensation
- JOHN P MASTANDREA MD (Physician): $1,011,250 total reported compensation
- ANDREW RIGGIN MD (Physician): $793,548 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide Marylanders a better state of care.
What it reported doing in 2024
University of Maryland community medical group (umcmg) operates the shore medical group. As a member of umms, umcmg provides an integrated and comprehensive primary care physician network serving the entire mid-shore region. The primary care physicians and healthcare professionals who are members of this network are dedicated to enhancing the health status of families throughout the area. Physicians specialize in family practice, pediatrics, internal medicine, and a variety of specialty services. They provide quality care in convenient locations in talbot, dorchester, caroline, kent, and queen anne's counties.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 100% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 88
- Transparency & Controls: 70
- Accountability: 37
- Sustainability: 2
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 96%; rating input score 96
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: -33.7%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.01; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 7.78; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.1%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -5.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 96% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $85.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $2.6M · 17 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $4.3M reported
- Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 56 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 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.