Health Care for All Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043071598
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
6173507279
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,053,640
Expenses
$7,855,841
Assets
$10,480,787
Liabilities
$3,703,829

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AMY ROSENTHAL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • TRISHAN PANCH MD (DIRECTOR AND PRESIDENT)
  • AARON HOLMAN (DIRECTOR AND VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • AMY ROSENTHAL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $280,918 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL ROSS (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $184,976 total reported compensation
  • ALEXANDER SHEFF (SR. DIRECTOR, POLICY & GOVERNMENT RELATIONS): $135,338 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Health care for all advocates for health justice in Massachusetts by working to promote health equity and ensure coverage and access for all.

What it reported doing in 2024

Campaign & policy - hcfa listens to what it hears from helpline callers and local community members and then develops legislative and administrative policy solutions to make systemic changes to our health care system. This policy work is focused on health care access, affordability, and equity for the people of Massachusetts. Hcfa works in coalition on most of its policy campaigns to address a wide range of issues including prescription drug affordability, oral health care, children's behavioral health, and more.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.8%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 86.1%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $35.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.7%; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: 21.9%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.33; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.35; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.2%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.8% of revenue deployed · 86.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $6.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $281K · 24 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $618K reported
  • Consistency: 38 of 39 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 55 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 49 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.