National Assocation of VA Physicians And

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521086032
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2013, Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Oakland Park, FL, USA
Phone
9546258661
Rating confidence
Limited

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$32,299
Expenses
$29,156
Assets
$324,352
Liabilities
$98

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Joseph T Abate DMD (Director)
  • Pamela E Karasik (Director)
  • Stephen Vaughn MD (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

We are dedicated to improving the quality of patient care in the VA health care system, ensuring the doctor-patient relationship is maintained and strengthened.

What it reported doing in 2025

NAVAPD noted that the vast majority of VA medical centers and CBOCs are aging, decrepit structures, and that the infrastructure does not meet the needs of the expanding patient base, especially given the expansion of benefits and presumably expansion of the patient base as a result of the recent passage of the PACT Act. Of note, NAVAPD learned that the Asset Infrastructure Review process has been dispatched by Congress. Instead, a market assessment of VAs infrastructure will occur every 3-4 years. On the positive side a provision in the PACT Act will now allow VA to lease additional infrastructure over 10,000 square feet without having to have Congressional approval. This will allow VA to lease more buildings to accommodate more patients.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.7%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.12; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.9% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.7% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.