Patients Rising Now

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
475375842
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$200,000
Expenses
$213,020
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Teressa Wilcox (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Teressa Wilcox (Executive Director): $12,642 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To create one united patient voice. Empowering patients with correct information to break down the barriers to access vital treatments needed. Providing a voice to change insurance and regulatory barriers.

What it reported doing in 2017

Patient Value Watch: An interactive website designed to educate patients on one of the major barriers to access they experience with little knowledge it is happening: Value Frameworks. Patients Rising Now educates patients on the types of value frameworks being developed and engages them with polls, surveys and measurable data in an effort to use their voices and their data to affect change toward better access and more patient-centered care.Patient Advocate Training: Training patient advocates who want to be involved in advocacy beyond simply signing a letter or calling their congressperson. We teach patients how to use their story to affect change for the masses. Patients Rising Now hosts local training days for regional patient advocates, as well as tele-townhalls. They also train advocates to elevate their voice in the media Patient Declaration: A special major campaign in 2016 that gathered more than 50000 patient signatures and created a patient advocate community where they can engage with each other, develop meet-ups and use their voices to help break down the barriers to access in health care

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 56% for direct work, and 44% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 61
  • Sustainability: 17
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -6.5%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.9%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -35.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -27.4% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $213K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $13K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2016 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.