New York State Medical Group Management Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900299264
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2015–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2014, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Hunt Valley, MD, USA
Phone
4105270780
Rating
41
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Business and Industry

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$97,410
Expenses
$113,010
Assets
$193,027
Liabilities
$1,695

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KIM SHUFELT CMPE (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • DANIEL STRAUCH MHA FACMPE (President)
  • ANNE ZACCHEO MBA FACMPE (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • PAWAN ARYA MBBS MBA CASC (AT LG DIRECTOR)
  • GERALD NANNEN MBA (AT LG DIRECTOR)
  • KIM SHUFELT CMPE (PAST PRESIDENT)

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 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The advancement of medical group practice management through educational programs and information exchange.

What it reported doing in 2019

The association provides a forum in which members, the health community, legislative bodies, and the general public may share the benefits of the expertise of those in medical group management.

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
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: 13
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 14%; rating input score 14
  • Program expense ratio: 12%; rating input score 12

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -16%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.71; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -38.9% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8.6% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 14% of revenue deployed · 12% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $14K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2015 to 2019
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 14/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.