Quality Health Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201632384
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Grand Junction, CO, USA
Phone
9702480033
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,585,480
Expenses
$4,748,781
Assets
$1,027,180
Liabilities
$190,481

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MELISSA KOTRYS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & TREASURER)
  • GREGORY REICKS DO (PRESIDENT (UNTIL 5/2024))

Highest reported compensation

  • MELISSA KOTRYS (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & TREASURER): $560,364 total reported compensation
  • MARC LASSAUX - CEO EXECUTIVE (DIRECTOR THEN DIRECTOR): $499,484 total reported compensation
  • RICHARD WARNER - CHIEF MGMT (PROJECT OFFICER (UNTIL 5/2024)): $366,524 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To optimize the whole-person health of the more than 400,000 residents of the western Colorado medical trade area qhn serves. Qhn's health information exchange (hie) improves the efficiency, timeliness, and quality of the healthcare provided for all, with a focus on non-profit providers, rural hospitals, and clinics, public health services, safety-net providers, and community-based organizations to reduce the burden on government programs. The services qhn provides improve the ability of healthcare providers to collaborate, coordinate treatment, manage and prevent illness, and reduce costly duplicative testing and medical errors that are attributable to insufficient access to timely, accurate clinical information.

What it reported doing in 2024

Clinical improvement, population health management and chronic disease management: while the chronically ill comprise a relatively small percentage of the total population, they historically account for a large percentage of the healthcare delivery system resources and associated expenses. Medicare and medicaid eligible populations suffer disproportionately from chronic illnesses. A key component of qhn's quality improvement activities is the provision and implementation of high-value technical applications to support providers' ability to identify and manage the care of chronically ill patients. These applications support population health management, risk stratification, predictive modeling tools, and proactive care coordination to reduce the burden on these government supported programs. These tools help in the early identification and treatment of patients with chronic disease to improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs. As the electronic network connectivity work in the qhn medical trade area continues to mature, the process to improve evidence-based, coordinated care for chronic disease is progressing by implementing these sophisticated applications. This helps providers move from the current system of episodic care to a coordinated system of care that creates and maintains healthy populations. Qhn's network and advanced architecture supports the data needs of these applications to help providers integrate coordinated chronic disease management and preventive care into their workflow and make them more successful as they transition to new value-based payment models. Improvements in care require that these chronic disease states be not only managed and controlled during the patient visit, but that proactive management and patient engagement occur. This level of coordinated care is only practical with the support of these applications. Qhn actively works to support providers as they implement and use population health management, registry, and quality measurement applications. These applications provide for the longitudinal monitoring capabilities needed to proactively manage disease and aggregate outcomes, and support measurement, for groups of patients or the entire provider's patient panel. Registries and other care coordination tools also enable providers to involve care team members to efficiently support the patient care process and actively engage patients in their disease management. Managing diseases via a registry is the expected best practice as providers develop more efficient means to care for patients. Qhn supports most of the nearly 5,200 qhn users with their data needs for the utilization of population health tools embedded in their ehrs, or via other supporting applications. Prescription drug and opioid abuse is a major area of concern, not only in the state of Colorado but nationwide. Qhn provides services under a pilot project to improve access and use of the Colorado prescription drug monitoring program (pdmp) by enabling access to pdmp via the qhn system for nearly 290 qhn users. Qhn has also enabled access to the Colorado department of health care policy & financing's (Colorado medicaid) prescriber tool opioid risk module opisafe via the qhn platform. Improving care coordination and care transitionsthe transition of a patient from one care setting to another is frequently the source of reduced system efficiency, duplicative diagnostic testing, and the impetus for increased medical errors. This transition may be from provider to provider or from care setting to care setting such as the hospital to rehabilitation facility, home health care or hospice facility. It is common for a patient to receive care and treatment from many disparate providers during a single episode of care. Having real-time, concise, and accurate patient medical information available to all providers involved in the care of the patient during these transitions is essential for improved quality, safety, and cost reduction

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 87% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 42
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.3%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 85.6%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.22; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 49.4%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.3% of revenue deployed · 85.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $560K · 24 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $131K reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.