Association of Healthcare Value Analysis Professionals Incorporated

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201573898
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2009–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2019, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Albany, NY, USA
Phone
5183061412
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Employment N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$86,699
Expenses
$128,588
Assets
$105,649
Liabilities
$1,500

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUSAN MILLER (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • LAURA POLSON (President)
  • SUSAN TOOMEY (President ELECT)

People named in this filing

  • SUSAN MILLER (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • LAURA POLSON (President)
  • CHRISTOPHER HANNON (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 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide and promote processes and information to assist value analysis professionals in evaluating healthcare services for clinical quality and cost effectiveness.

What it reported doing in 2020

Each year ahvap hosts its annual conference which draws individuals form around the country giving them the opportunity to meet and discuss happenings within the industry along with new ideas, networking and educational opportunities. Ahvap has members across the us working as healthcare value analysis professionals. It is comprised of clinicians and professionals who are associated with virtually all faces of the procurement and management of hospital supplies and equipment. Members share information/benchmarks and have created a communication network that is private, confidential and free from commercial influence.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -48.3%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.82; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2009 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.