National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug Prices

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010535762
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Hallowell, ME, USA
Phone
2076225597
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,000
Expenses
$5,201
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Lucinda Rosenwald (President)

People named in this filing

  • Mark C Montigny (Director)
  • Elizabeth Ritter (Director)
  • Patricia Gardner (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. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug Prices Organizational DescriptionThe National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug Prices is a nonpartisan 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization founded and directed by state legislators. The Association is a leader in the national discussion on reducing prescription drug prices. Information sharing has played a vital role in progress towards more affordable health care and medicines in the United States. Our goal is to assist legislators working across state lines to make prescription drugs more affordable and accessible to people in the United States, especially by reducing prescription drug prices. Some of the activities of the Association include: Serving as a clearinghouse for research and information relating to the pricing ofprescription drugs; Providing a forum for the discussion, development and coordination of publicpolicy strategies to reduce prescription drug prices; Encouraging and supporting the enactment of legisla

What it reported doing in 2014

In FY 2014-2015, upon request and to the extent possible within available funding, staff and board members provided technical assistance to policymakers and legislative staff in states throughout the country and to staff for Congressional committees and state legislative organizations. Staff and board members were also a resource for national and state-based media on pharmaceutical policy. The Association maintained a comprehensive website with extensive policy content (through March 15, 2015), and acted as a clearinghouse for legislation and information and assist state legislators across the country with their research into prescription drug-related legislation and network with other legislators and academics, policymakers and activists working on these issues.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -88.1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -54.5% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -38.2% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.