Maryland Society of Anesthesiologists Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
810620229
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Annapolis, MD, USA
Phone
4102691503
Rating
42
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$155,332
Expenses
$132,297
Assets
$404,745
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Ram Peruvemba MD (President)
  • Maxim Orlov MD (Vice President & PAC MD Treasurer)
  • Haitham Al-Grain MD (Immediate Past President & ASA Director)
  • Daniel Shattuck (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Daniel Shattuck (Executive Director): $54,304 total reported compensation
  • Barbara Marx Brocato (Legislative Consultant & Lobbysist): $54,304 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

It is the purpose of the Maryland Society of Anesthesiologists to promote patient safety, encourage specialization in the field of anesthesiology and to disseminate information regarding anesthesiology

What it reported doing in 2025

ASA Annual Meeting- The MSA is a component society of the ASA. Based on our number of Active members and Resident members we are allocated 7 delegates, 7 alternate delegates and 3 resident delegates along with our District Director (1 vote). This entitles us to 8 voting seats (alternates only vote in the absence of a delegate) in the ASA House of Delegates and 3 voting seats in the ASA Resident House of Delegates. It is at the ASA Annual Meeting where the policies, standards, guidelines and other initiatives impacting the life of the society and the practice of anesthesiology are made. Our society helps defray the costs of our Delegates and Alternate delegates and executive staff to attend.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 80% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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: 79
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 20

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: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.8%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.06; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 82.1%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -2.3% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $13K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $54K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 16 current checks pass · 8 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLobbying column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesManagement column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.