California Medical Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
940359340
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
(800) 786-4262
Rating
53
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$44,495,393
Expenses
$43,012,544
Assets
$45,844,907
Liabilities
$39,510,880

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

Leadership & pay

61 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dustin E Corcoran (Chief Executive Officer, California Medical Assoc.)
  • Stuart Thompson (Senior Vice President, Government Relations)
  • David T Ford (CEO, CMA Physician Services Inc)
  • Guadalupe M Diaz (CEO, Physicians of Healthy California)
  • Michelle Chapanian (Vice President, Governance)
  • Elizabeth McNeil (Vice President, Federal Government Relations)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dustin E Corcoran (Chief Executive Officer, California Medical Assoc.): $1,589,703 total reported compensation
  • Jamie Ostroff (Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel): $772,372 total reported compensation
  • Lance R Lewis (Chief Operating Officer): $735,573 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The work CMA does is only possible thanks to the collective strength of our physician members. It is when we act in concert with one another and speak with one voice that we can be most effective in shaping the future of health care and building a system that works for our patients.

What it reported doing in 2024

CMA supported physician practices during a devasting cyberattack that resulted in nationwide outages that threatened the viability of physician practices. CMA successfully advocated for advance payments and interest-free financial resources to keep practice doors open. Additionally, CMA stepped in to stop a Blue Shield modifier 25 policy that would have significantly reduced reimbursement for Evaluation and Management services and created a disincentive for physicians to provide efficient care for unscheduled services. CMA filed a lawsuit against the Department of Managed Health Care for failing to enforce California's prompt payment regulations in implementing SB 510, which resulted in significant delays and reductions in reimbursements.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 61% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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: 100
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 36
  • 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; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 6 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 84%; rating input score 84; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.3%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.07; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.86; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.2%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 42 of 50 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.6M · 61 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $973K reported
  • Consistency: 15 of 16 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 22 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 14 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.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.