Greater Cincinnati Health Bridge Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311487062
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
Phone
5134697222
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,598,863
Expenses
$3,218,945
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID GROVES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CEO)
  • CRAIG BRAMMER (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • RICHARD SHONK MD (CHAIR): $349,371 total reported compensation
  • CRAIG BRAMMER (CEO): $310,265 total reported compensation
  • KEITH W HEPP (VP OF BUSINESS): $197,998 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To improve the quality and efficiency of healthcare in our community. To do this we serve as a trusted third party working with all participating healthcare stakeholders to facilitate the creation of an integrated and interoperable community healthcare system.

What it reported doing in 2015

Healthbridge is a not-for-profit corporation that supports healthinformation technology (hit) adoption, health information exchange(hie), and innovative use of information for improved health careoutcomes. For well over a decade, healthbridge has been recognized asone of the nation's largest, most advanced, and most financiallysustainable hies. Healthbridge's information network has grown toencompass more than 50 hospitals, 800 physician practices and 7,500physicians in five different communities in four states. Healthbridge's secure electronic network sends roughly 5 - 7 million electronic messages per month, including clinical lab tests, radiology reports, discharge summaries and other information vital to better care for more than 3 million patients.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 89% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 61% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 5
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 86.8%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • 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; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -101.3%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.9%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -55.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -17.9% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -21.3% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 86.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $349K · 10 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $211K reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

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 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.