American Board of Interventional Pain Physicians Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 202144650
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Paducah, KY, USA
- Phone
- 2704434500
- Rating
- 45
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Professional Societies, Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $77,503
- Expenses
- $213,106
- Assets
- $897,430
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SALAHADIN ABDI MD PHD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
People named in this filing
- SALAHADIN ABDI MD PHD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- LAXMAIAH MANCHIKANTI MD (SECRETARY AND DIRECTOR)
- BRADLEY WARGO DO (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. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The American Board of Interventional Pain Physicians Inc. provides a board certification in interventional pain mgmt and competency certification in controlled substance mgmt coding compliance and practice management and regenerative medicine. The organizations goals include maintaining the highest standards of the practice of interventional pain management by fostering education and training and establishing and maintaining criteria for the designation of board and competency certification.
What it reported doing in 2025
In 2025 approximately 23 people took exams or became recertified to maintain high standards in the practice of pain mgmt. Certification exams given included ABIPP Part 1 and 2 and competency exams were provided in regenerative medicine controlled substance management and coding compliance and practice management.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
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: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 64
- Sustainability: 35
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: -175%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.21; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -4.4% per year; rating input score 0; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
- Consistency: 34 of 39 current checks pass · 5 findings to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 7 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesInvstMgmntFees column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesManagement column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.