The Preparedness and Treatment Equity Coalition Corp
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 853179615
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2022
- Forms available
- Form 990 2022
- Location
- New York, NY, USA
- Phone
- 9172872663
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $255,000
- Expenses
- $117,932
- Assets
- $314,876
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
People named in this filing
- RAYMOND WILLIAMS JD (CHAIR)
- SUNG POBLETE PHD RN (VICE CHAIR)
- ANTONIO FERNANDEZ (TREASURER)
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 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Preparedness and treatment equity coalition (ptec) advances the study and identification of health system reforms to improve health outcomes and by doing so to reduce health disparities in black, latino, asian and native american communities. This includes access to testing, diagnosis and treatment of conditions that are prevalent or poorly treated in those patient groups.
What it reported doing in 2022
Research - pandemic recovery efforts cannot reach their full potential without addressing the inequities in care that make an infectious disease pandemic even more deadly for certain communities in the us.to date, there is significant evidence of health disparities within underserved communities, including those due to the effects of social determinants and institutional racism. However, several factors of the research landscape impede efforts to make meaningful change: current research is siloed and generally knowledge-driven, not grounded in application and operational change; existing datasets about these disparities are not well-connected and do not serve a common purpose, due to limited incentives including barriers inherent in the reimbursement system; the use of advanced analytics and combined datasets has been limited, causing a lack of understanding of major points of intervention.healthcare delivery systems exacerbate these disparities through common practices. For example, payment for value can encourage providers to avoid patients who may require more time or resources to achieve the same health outcome. Furthermore, performance measures are reported in aggregate, leading to systems in which providers can achieve performance bonuses even with health inequity.our research examines delivery system reforms to address healthcare disparities. These efforts will focus on several key areas: reporting performance metrics: developing health system performance metrics (such as vaccination rates or cardiovascular and metabolic disease rates) to identify disparities, not just average levels of care; segmenting metrics based on time spent to identify the implications of adverse selection; exploring how public programs could drive a change in reporting and renumeration.data use: understanding targeting and presentation strategies to ensure data is used to advance the message of healthcare disparities to key stakeholders; identifying new research areas specific to vaccination and chronic disease treatment to drive the importance of health equity.outcome visibility: making disparities in outcomes of key provider groups (academic centers, health systems, hospitals, life sciences companies, and payors) visible to drive intent to decrease health equity; establishing clear metrics of health equity success and publicizing these outcomes to incentivize action.during 2022 a grant was given to evaluate health system delivery models and reforms.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 70% for direct work, and 30% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 51
- Transparency & Controls: 94
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 81
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 40.1%; rating input score 40
- Program expense ratio: 86.7%; rating input score 87
- 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 53.8%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.67; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 43.7% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -3.5% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 40.1% of revenue deployed · 86.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $102K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2020 to 2022
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.