California Healthcare Performance Information System

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
460841392
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4152818660
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Health Systems

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,135,158
Expenses
$2,207,646
Assets
$366,882
Liabilities
$267,785

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID LANSKY (INTERIM PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DAVID LANSKY (INTERIM PRESIDENT)
  • SAM HO MD (SECRETARY(THRU 7/18))
  • JOHN STENERSON (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 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Chpi's mission is to serve as a trusted source of healthcare information by accurately measuring the quality and cost of care, reporting performance ratings, educating the public about healthcare value, and helping drive improvements in healthcare in California. Chpi's vision is for consumers, purchasers, and providers of healthcare to have information necessary to drive a high value healthcare system in California.the following represent the key objectives of chpi:- produce performance ratings of physicians, medical groups, hospitals and other providers.- support the education of the public about performance information and support policies that enhance the public's ability to access information on cost and quality.- continue to measure patient experience with medical groups in collaboration with health plans and the California pay for performance program- achieve measurement system efficiencies by serving as a central claims data resource in California.

What it reported doing in 2018

The patient assessment survey (pas), which has been administered for over a decade, is an annual survey to assess patient experience with medical groups' care and services among adult hmo and pos enrollees in California. Pas is the nation's largest system for evaluating and publishing physician group ratings based on the patient's experience. Participating medical groups provide care to more than 90% of commercially insured hmo and pos patients in California. The pas survey contains a set of patient experience measures on access, patient-doctor interactions, office staff interactions, coordination of care, health promotion, and overall ratings of care. Instrument with some customization for topics of interest locally.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.9%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 95.7%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.4%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.17; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.73; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -35.5% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 98.9% of revenue deployed · 95.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $2.1M reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2013 to 2018
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.