National Patient Advocate Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541839226
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Hampton, VA, USA
Phone
7579521369
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$982,347
Expenses
$967,066
Assets
$1,418,412
Liabilities
$239,173

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AL BENSON III MD FACP (PAST BOARD PRESIDENT)
  • OTIS MAYNARD ESQ (BOARD PRESIDENT)
  • REGINALD TUCKER-SEELEY MA SCM SCD (BOARD VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DR ALAN J BALCH PHD (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • DR ALAN J BALCH PHD (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $614,315 total reported compensation
  • REBECCA KIRCH (EVP, POLICY & PROGRAMS): $245,995 total reported compensation
  • GWEN DARIEN (EVP, PATIENT ADVOCACY): $214,484 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The national patient advocate foundation, the advocacy affiliate of the patient advocate foundation, represents the patient voice, both the powerful stories of individuals and the collective needs of the community. Our programs are developed to reflect the experiences and overcome the barriers that paf patients who are living with chronic, debilitating or life-threatening illness and their caregivers encounter in accessing affordable, quality health care. Npaf is a thought leader in developing policies that protect patients and caregivers from lack of transparency, medical debt and equitable access to care and services at key points during their illness.

What it reported doing in 2024

Npaf leads a volunteer grassroots network in activities to advance the organization's policy priorities as guided by board-approved principles that are updated annually. The complement of principles translates to various advocacy opportunities for minimizing burdens experienced by patients and caregivers so they can maintain medical, mental/behavioral and financial health. Our agenda targets hardships experienced by all paitents regardless of where they live, their diagnosis, race, gender, education or income level. Among other priorities, npaf focuses on opportunities to advance innovative policies establishing "needs navigation" as a standard part of care. These services must be reliably available in all settings to ease patients' healthcare costs concerns that are consequences of complex and chronic illnesses. Npaf also partners with paf's patient insight institute on producing patient insight congress. The conference agenda offers a unique approach for generating actionable research ideas and academic-partnered projects, including evidence supporting npaf's healthcare policy agenda. The program brings representative cohorts of patients, caregivers and grassroots volunteers to the conference alongside researchers. Npaf staff serve as faculty and administrative support partnering with patient insight institute in planning, executing and evaluating outcomes of these events.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.2%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 82.8%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.6%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.47; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 86.2%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.2% of revenue deployed · 82.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $800K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $614K · 18 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.