Alliance for Patient Care
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 334894554
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Sheridan, WY, USA
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $80,500
- Expenses
- $61,816
- Assets
- $18,684
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
People named in this filing
- Jennings DePriest (Chairman)
- Jessica Graham (Secretary)
- Elnatan Rudolph (Treasurer)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To advocate for patient access to healthcare services and treatments with a focus on federal policy affecting wound care reimbursement and skin substitute coverage under Medicare.
What it reported doing in 2025
Alliance for Patient Care engaged Converge Public Strategies to conduct professional federal lobbying and government affairs services on behalf of the organizations members and the patients they serve. Activities included direct advocacy with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services CMS the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee regarding proposed CMS rule changes that would reduce reimbursement rates for skin substitute products used in wound care treatment by approximately 95%. The organization advocated in support of S.2561 Skin Substitute Access and Payment Reform Act sponsored by Senator Cassidy to delay or reform the proposed changes ahead of the January 1 2026 implementation deadline. Beneficiaries include wound care providers distributors and the chronic wound patients they treat a population with a five-year mortality rate comparable to many cancers.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 83
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 49
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 74.5%; rating input score 75
- Program expense ratio: 97.1%; rating input score 97
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 23.2%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.3; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 74.5% of revenue deployed · 97.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $60K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.