Michigan Health Purchasers Coalition
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 933744148
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Novi, MI, USA
- Phone
- 2485961006
- Rating
- 66
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Alliance/Advocacy Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $225,000
- Expenses
- $108,798
- Assets
- $121,202
- Liabilities
- $5,000
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
People named in this filing
- MIKE GRUDZINSKI (SECRETARY)
- BRET JACKSON (CHAIR)
- STACY LEICK (TREASURER)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Michigan health purchasers coalition (mihpc) is a 501(c)(4) established to mobilize employers, families and other healthcare stakeholders across the state to rein in the excessive prices paid for employer-sponsored healthcare for over half of all michiganders. Mihpc initiatives include increasing hospital price transparency, prohibiting anti-competitive contracts and billing, increasing oversight on consolidations and mergers, and incorporating fair pricing among all payers of healthcare.
What it reported doing in 2024
1. Research and analysis: mihpc conducted in-depth research and surveys on state-level policies, current trends in healthcare costs and their potential impact on the rising costs of healthcare especially for employers and working families in Michigan. The findings were compiled into detailed reporting and publicly available at www.mihpc.org. 2. Advocating: mihpc will be engaging in advocating efforts to support the passage of various legislation concerning the costs of healthcare primarily the costs to employers who provide health benefits. This initiative is in the beginning stages with potential policies awaiting the legislative process. This involved and will involve mihpc meeting with government officials and staff to provide educational briefings, present research data, and testify at committee hearings on legislation pertaining to the rising costs of healthcare. The primary goal was/is to ensure the legislation's provisions align with our mission of advocating to decrease the burden that rising healthcare costs have on employers. 3. Education: mihpc educated state legislators, the media, and the public on possible reasons why healthcare costs are hurting the pockets of employers and michiganders. This was accomplished through in-person meetings, social media, newsletters and media coverage.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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
SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 56
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 64
- Sustainability: 68
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 45.3%; rating input score 45
- Program expense ratio: 93.8%; rating input score 94
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: 51.6%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.11; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 45.3% of revenue deployed · 93.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $102K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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 45/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.