National Association for Trusted Exchange

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN: 462661901
IRS 990-EZ coverage: 2015–2017
Forms available: Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-N 2014
Location: Germantown, MD, USA
Phone: 3015402311
Rating: 57
Verdict: MIXED
Rating confidence: Moderate
Sector: International Cultural Exchange

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue: $51,830
Expenses: $60,343
Assets: $2,069
Liabilities: $0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

AARON SEIB (CEO)

People named in this filing

AARON SEIB (CEO)
PAUL CARTLAND (CHAIR)
CHAD PETERSON (VICE-CHAIR)

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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

National association for trusted exchange's (nate) mission is to address the legal, policy and technical barriers that inhibit health information exchange between entities within a state and across states. Nate will collaborate with all interested participants to develop the required solutions and pilot them in the real-world, with the intent to establish simple solutions that overcome the barriers that impact health information exchange.

What it reported doing in 2017

In 2017 nate's three largest programs by expense were:1 - in 2017 nate continued to operate its flagship community offering, the nate blue button for consumers (nbb4c) trust bundle. A trust bundle is a mechanism that simplifies the secure exchange of electronic health information amongst participants and those who subscribe to the bundle.2 - nate led the community of participants and members in the on-going open standard development process led by hl7 including providing leadership of the consumer centered data exchange track at multiple venues. This includes work to correlate the global standards being established across the health it eco-system and nate's trustharbor concept initially prototyped in 2016. The trustharbor describes a mechanism by which a secondary market of app endorsers are able to securely apply their endorsements to apps in a discoverable fashion such that relying parties may verify that a given consumer application has the endorsements required by the discloser to permit different operations (including but not limited to the disclosure of health information) based on the requirements of local policy enforcement points.3 - nate continued to be active participants in the consumer centered health information movement by expanding its inter-association activities with similarly consumer focused associations including the carin alliance and the health record banking association.nate was positioned to begin 2018 with a clear market position focused on b2c transaction between hipaa covered entities and the consumers that they serve.

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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 46
Transparency & Controls: 82
Sustainability: 28
Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

Mission deployment rate: 48.9%; rating input score 49
Program expense ratio: 42%; rating input score 42

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

Operating margin: -16.4%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.03; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

Program expense growth: -55.6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Revenue growth: -6.5% per year; rating input score 0; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Asset growth: -46.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

Where the money goes: 48.9% of revenue deployed · 42% of spending went to programs
Governance: Filed governance answers
Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $25K in reported program spending
Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
Schedules: 2 filed schedules
Filing history: 3 filing years from 2015 to 2017
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.

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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 42/100.
High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.