Accountable for Health Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
933366386
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2024871393
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$650,000
Expenses
$360,507
Assets
$310,982
Liabilities
$21,389

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mara McDermott (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Mara McDermott (CEO): $623,250 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

See Schedule O.

What it reported doing in 2024

Data on Accountable Care Adoption: The Institute supported the development of first of its kind data breaking down the geographic location of accountable care delivery models by state and Congressional district. This data shows where clinicians and their patients are experiencing accountable care. This is important because unlike insurance coverage, beneficiaries do not enroll in accountable care delivery models. It can therefore be difficult to determine where beneficiaries are participating in these models and how prevalent these models are. This data demonstrates widespread adoption of accountable care across the country and can lead us to glean other insights about trends and improvements for the future, such as expanding in currently underserved areas. Data on Accountable Care Results: We worked with stakeholders to develop data about the results of accountable care, including research to show that accountable care lowers health care costs and improves health outcomes for patient populations. This is important because it supports our core mission of being able to harness evidence to show that accountable care is an improvement over fee-for-service reimbursement. Convenings: We worked with thought leaders and operators in accountable care companies to coalesce and convene forums to discuss the barriers to effective accountable care. Partnering with philanthropic supporters, we brought together diverse stakeholders to discuss policy and operational barriers to advancing accountable care and began designing solutions that could advance care delivery in the future.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 12
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 10.4%; rating input score 10
  • Program expense ratio: 18.7%; rating input score 19
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 44.5%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.86; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.6%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 10.4% of revenue deployed · 18.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 2 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $68K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $623K · 3 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $265K reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 10/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.