Alosa Health Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202028893
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
6179485997
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,884,887
Expenses
$6,097,743
Assets
$9,311,522
Liabilities
$907,644

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JERRY AVORN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • PAUL FANIKOS (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $266,904 total reported compensation
  • ELLEN DANCEL (DIR OF CLINICAL MATERIALS): $214,821 total reported compensation
  • ANTONIO JOSE FIALHO DE MELO (DIR OF CLINICAL EDUCATION): $203,255 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Improve patient outcomes by identifying and disseminating the best evidence available, to support health care professionals in providing optimal care for their patients.

What it reported doing in 2024

Alosa health is the national nonprofit leader in developing and implementing programs of academic detailing to improve prescribing. We believe that medical decisions should be based on unbiased, evidence-based information that helps prescribers make appropriate clinical decisions based on the best available data. The model uses specially trained clinical educators who meet one-on-one with physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants (at their practice locations), to discuss the most recent clinical data on a particular primary care topic. This approach provides an effective and convenient way for providers to stay up-to-date on the latest clinical research findings, with the ultimate goal of improving prescribing decisions and patient care.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 83% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 54
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.8%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 91.2%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 11.4%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.53; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.2%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.8% of revenue deployed · 91.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $267K · 10 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $859K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.