Catalyst for Payment Reform

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263912650
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Berkeley, CA, USA
Phone
4155489761
Rating
52
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,994,825
Expenses
$1,475,510
Assets
$811,503
Liabilities
$284,666

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BERNARDINO GUY D'ANDREA (PRESIDENT/EX)

Highest reported compensation

  • BERNARDINO GUY D'ANDREA (PRESIDENT/EX): $301,155 total reported compensation
  • ANDREA CABALLERO (PROGRAM DIRE): $284,472 total reported compensation
  • RYAN OLMSTEAD (DIRECTOR OF): $248,863 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Catalyst for payment reform (cpr) is an independent, nonprofit corporation on a mission to help employers and other health care purchasers get better value for their health care dollar. Cpr seeks to empower health care purchasers who want to proactively improve the way the health care market functions. Cpr is a member-based organization that derives its momentum from our cpr membership, a group of 30+ progressive employers. In addition to our membership, we design offerings to meet the needs of a range of purchasers, including education, tools, research, and events.

What it reported doing in 2024

To catalyze employers, public purchasers and others to implement strategies that produce higher-value health care and improve the functioning of the health care marketplace. Cprs efforts all drive toward three strategic goals, which will in turn help us achieve our broader mission of building a higher value health care system for our members and other health care stakeholders: effective payment reform: 20% of payments will flow through methods proven to improve value. Innovative health care purchasers: health care purchasers will become more educated and activated on the use of benefit designs, payment methods, and other tactics that support higher value health care. Better health care marketplace: through greater visibility and competition, the health care marketplace will be more responsive to the needs of those who use and pay for health care.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

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: 30
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 67
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30.9%; rating input score 31
  • Program expense ratio: 38.3%; rating input score 38
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 26%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.55; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.35; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 56.6%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 30.9% of revenue deployed · 38.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $565K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $301K · 8 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.