Usc Care Medical Group Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
954540991
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3234425955
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health Treatment Facilities, Primarily Outpatient

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$563,665,806
Expenses
$646,920,368
Assets
$107,797,974
Liabilities
$334,374,689

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

Leadership & pay

39 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID PENG MD MPH (FORMER PRESIDENT)
  • JOSEPH OUZOUNIAN MD (DIR/PRESIDENT)
  • SMITHA RAVIPUDI (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • VAUGHN STARNES MD (DIRECTOR): $3,959,981 total reported compensation
  • INDERBIR SINGH GILL MD (DIRECTOR): $3,141,326 total reported compensation
  • ROD HANNERS (CHAIR): $2,498,697 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 promote health by engaging in the practice of medicine for patients of hospitals affiliated with the university of southern California keck school of medicine and elsewhere. To provide medical care to the sick and injured who may come to this corporation for diagnosis, treatment and care without regard to race, color, creed, sex, age or ability to pay for services and particularly to provide such medical care for persons who seek such care at hospitals and other health care facilities affiliated with the university.

What it reported doing in 2024

Patient care - to promote health by engaging in the practice of medicine for patients of hospitals affiliated with the university of southern California keck school of medicine and elsewhere. To provide medical care to the sick and injured who may come to this corporation for diagnosis, treatment and care without regard to race, color, creed, sex, age or ability to pay for services and particularly to provide such medical care for persons who seek such care at hospitals and other health care facilities affiliated with the university.

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 program spending has grown recently. 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: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 33
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 87.1%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 12th 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 8%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -14.8%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.17; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 3.1; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.5%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 87.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 25 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $563.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $4M · 39 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $362.9M reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 31 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 8/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.