Value Health Partners

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
262144935
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Phone
6167745083
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health Support Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$339,074
Expenses
$170,271
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To improve community health value through best performance measure and representation.

What it reported doing in 2014

Eight Michigan healthcare systems have joined to create greater value for their patients and communities by forming value health partners. The organization's focus involves maximizing value through clinical quality and best practices, community health improvement programs to address health disparities for at-risk populations, and advocacy to represent a variety of Michigan communities on policy issues. Our organization's three initiatives are: value maximization, legislation and community health improvement programs. Value maximization - focus on clinical quality and safety best practices. Clinical dashboards are produced for 14 conditions. The quality team works to identify best practices and make rapid changes within their system. Members are transforming their hospitals into the high reliability organizational safety culture with a goal of zero errors. Legislation - represent a variety of Michigan communities on policy issues. Vhp advocated for a fair distribution of the disproportionate share pool. Members also educated legislators on the challenging issues regarding care. Community health improvement programs - members work closely together on the IRS requirement to conduct a community health needs assessment. Best practice methods were shared and value health partners members engaged with local public health officers to conduct an assessment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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 - 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 41.2%; rating input score 41
  • Program expense ratio: 73.7%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $28.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

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: 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 49.8%; rating input score 94; 94th 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: 0%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -133.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.3% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 41.2% of revenue deployed · 73.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $125K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 39 of 39 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2009 to 2014
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 41/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.