Health Industry Business Communications Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
363313052
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
6023811091
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,978,542
Expenses
$1,310,728
Assets
$29,828,366
Liabilities
$882,331

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT HANKIN (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT HANKIN (CEO): $467,165 total reported compensation
  • ANGELIE GRANT (DIRECTOR OF): $133,473 total reported compensation
  • ALLISON MEHR (VICE PRESIDE): $127,745 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The council is organized to promote the interests of the healthcare industry and to achieve economic efficiencies and improvements in the quality of healthcare by overseeing and securing administration of uniform bar coding and other automated technologies.

What it reported doing in 2025

Hibcc maintains a standardized method of identifying health care provider locations by assigning a unique universal cross reference number for each. By doing so, health care supply chain trading partners can streamline electronic communication and administration to reduce costs and increase administrative efficiency. Hibcc provides a registry and registration process used by health care device manufacturers and distributors to uniquely identify themselves when adopting the hibcc standard on their package labeling. In this capacity hibcc has been designated by the us food and drug administration (fda) as an issuing agency for fda regulatory purposes to enhance product tracking and recall processes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 73% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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: 71
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 81
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 73.7%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 22.76; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 55.6%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 2 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $467K · 5 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.