Gonadometrics Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 If you read the bottom of the web page for NCCPA site you will notice that the NCCPA is a "not for profit" organization. All "not for profits" are required by Federal law to submit to the IRS a document disclosing summary financial information in a document entitled Form 990. These "990s" are available for nearly every "not for profit" through a website called Guidestar. It's free and intended to help those who provide funding to "not for profits" to assess whether the organization is run efficiently. I was curious and looked up the NCCPA Form 990. You can look up the details for yourselves but I'll give the broad strokes. Last year, the total revenue was $942,910. Just under one million dollars. The IRS requires that all officers and directors earning more than $50,000 per year be listed in the report. The following three individuals and their income is listed. President : Janet Lathrop $312,311 VP : Regan Cohn $146,928 VP : Sheilia Mauldin $161,046 Let's review. Three invididuals take home $619,000 of the $942,910 brought in. That equates to 65% of the NCCCPA revenues go to pay the compensation of three persons. In my humble opinion, that equates to a scam. So, you have to ask yourself. Did Lathrop, Cohn and Mauldin give you $619,000 worth of representation? Clearly, it has become more profitable to pretend to represent the interests of Physician Assistants than to actually be a Physician Assistant. In my estimate, the NCCPA has never been, is not now and will never be a legitimate organization that represents the interests of Physician Assistants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 The NCCPA is not supposed to "represent" PA's, at least not in the traditional sense. They are not an advocacy organization, that is not their purpose. They are a certifying body. They are supposed to be responsible to the patients you will care for...They are not our representation body. Just like ARC-PA is not either. BTW, they actually do represent our profession, just maybe not in the way that you would like. They maintain a huge database on PA's, and every year when I go to the AAMC Physician Workforce Research meeting, many of the researchers are amazed at the amount of data that the NCCPA maintains (Likewise many of them are very dismayed at the real lack of data on the NP professions). You don't have to like them, but you do have to deal with them if you want to maintain your "c". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonadometrics Posted December 15, 2011 Author Share Posted December 15, 2011 Imagine if you will, working at a large "not for profit" health system in your community. Would you consider it "reasonable that 3 top executives took sixty five cents of every dollar brought into the organization? They would have to have some really amazing database to persuade me that was justified. I stand by my original conclusion. When just three people take a 65% cut of the take, it's a scam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted December 15, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 15, 2011 it happens everywhere in every industry. you hear of wall st firms requiring huge bailouts yet their ceo's make millions. hospital ceo's roll in money and in most cases do very little to earn it, and they get that money even when the hospital operates at a loss year after year. if you want to make money be an administrator. you don't have to accomplish anything, you just need to look good and give a good speech or 2 per yr to your staff about the sacrificies THEY must make for the organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coloradopa Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Imagine if you will, working at a large "not for profit" health system in your community. Would you consider it "reasonable that 3 top executives took sixty five cents of every dollar brought into the organization? They would have to have some really amazing database to persuade me that was justified. I stand by my original conclusion. When just three people take a 65% cut of the take, it's a scam. Or you could learn to read/research. I would challenge you to post where you got your numbers. From 990 Finder the 2009 report (latest available from the IRS) http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/581/581218672/581218672_200912_990O.pdf Total Revenues $8.9 million Total Expenses $8.7 million Total Officer Salaries $1.5 million Total Salaries $2.5 million So less than 1/3 of expenses as salary. Less than that for key officers. Not defending the NCCPA or stating that its particularly well run. Just adding some actual verifiable facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonadometrics Posted December 15, 2011 Author Share Posted December 15, 2011 http://www2.guidestar.org/Home.aspx Search for NCCPA. You need to register (free). Look for 2009 Form 990. examine Line 8 Total Revenue. Then scroll down to Section A. Highest Compensated Employees Run the numbers and verify. 65% of revenue appears to fill the pockets of three persons. I am not making this up. The NCCPA submitted this report to the IRS. It's public information and certified by NCCPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coloradopa Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 http://www2.guidestar.org/Home.aspx S earch for NCCPA. You need to register (free). Look for 2009 Form 990. examine Line 8 Total Revenue. Then scroll down to Section A. Highest Compensated Employees Run the numbers and verify. 65% of revenue appears to fill the pockets of three persons. I am not making this up. The NCCPA submitted this report to the IRS. It's public information and certified by NCCPA. If you search for NCCPA you find the NCCPA foundation. The salaries listed are the same as for the NCCPA. You chose 2008 which had $1.6 million why didn't you choose 2009 when the "income" is $25k? In reality the NCCPA foundation is an offshoot of the NCCPA set up to do research. Its a 501 c (3) which isn't allowed to do lobbying unlike the NCCPA which is a 501 c (6). You can read about the NCCPA foundation here: http://www.paexcellence.org/about_us.html If you search for "NATIONAL COMMISSION ON CERTIFICATION OF PHYSICIANS ASSIST " you find the actual NCCPA which has the 990 that I outlined above (Ie more than $8 million revenue). I'm not an expert on 990's but since the numbers reported are the same on both 990's I am assuming that since Ms Lathrop is president of both the NCCPA and the foundation the salary is reported twice even though its only paid once. Whether a specialized CEO of an $8 million dollar company is worth $300k or so is another discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonadometrics Posted December 16, 2011 Author Share Posted December 16, 2011 Interesting. "Offshoots?" "Double accounting?" Sorry I didn't get an Accounting degree from Enron University. The fact remains that NCCPA filed a Form 990. It clearly reflects 65% of revenues going to pay the salaries of three individuals. If what you say about "Offshoots" and "Double accounting" is true, then it appears there are accounting irregularities here. Would you believe that a CEO could be listed as a full-time executive of 1000 "not for profits?" Probably not. The reason is that employees are expenses. Expenses are matched to revenues they produce. So, just how many "offshoots" does Lathrop supposedly "run?" Maybe the NCCPA needs an audit. Finally, you lay claim to her "specialized CEO" credential. Seriously? The National Board of Medical Examiners has a President who is an M.D. (Loma Linda). The NCCPA has a President whose credentials includes a BS (National Louis University) and a PhD (Capella). My question is whether the NCCPA couldn't find any other candidates from the ranks of the University of Phoenix or Devry. I'm just saying there is a big difference between a serious, professional organization like the NBME and a flimsy organization like the NCCPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Interesting that you somehow equate an M.D. degree with the ability to be a CEO of well, anything..... It's been my experience that physicians typically have an inflated opinion of their ability to lead people and/or function in administrative roles. IE; "I'm smart at medicine, so I'm the logical choice to lead a medical organization". Most physicians, despite being thrust into administrative roles are HORRIBLE administrators. They don't get training in it, and they are usually not self aware enough to realize this. There are exceptions of course. There are the occasional physicians who are born with exceptional leadership traits, and they end up becoming excellent administrators, but as a general rule....not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coloradopa Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Interesting. "Offshoots?" "Double accounting?" Sorry I didn't get an Accounting degree from Enron University. The fact remains that NCCPA filed a Form 990. It clearly reflects 65% of revenues going to pay the salaries of three individuals. If what you say about "Offshoots" and "Double accounting" is true, then it appears there are accounting irregularities here. Would you believe that a CEO could be listed as a full-time executive of 1000 "not for profits?" Probably not. The reason is that employees are expenses. Expenses are matched to revenues they produce. So, just how many "offshoots" does Lathrop supposedly "run?" Maybe the NCCPA needs an audit. Finally, you lay claim to her "specialized CEO" credential. Seriously? The National Board of Medical Examiners has a President who is an M.D. (Loma Linda). The NCCPA has a President whose credentials includes a BS (National Louis University) and a PhD (Capella). My question is whether the NCCPA couldn't find any other candidates from the ranks of the University of Phoenix or Devry. I'm just saying there is a big difference between a serious, professional organization like the NBME and a flimsy organization like the NCCPA. So you don't understand or you can't? Most 501 c (6) Non profits that have grants have a separate 501 c (3) organization that handles the grants. If all the grants come from the organization then its not necessary. If grants also come from outside organizations either for or non-profit then they usually have to be routed through a C (3). AAPA has their foundation, NBME participates in at least two foundations etc. As for the "65%" revenues you once again clearly are unable to understand. If you look at the figures for salaries on page 7 the second bulleted point: "List the organization 's five current highest compensated employees (other than an officer, director, trustee, or key employee) who received reportable compensation (Box 5 of Form W-2 and/or Box 7 of Form 1099-MISC) or more than $100,000 from the organization and any related organizations" I bolded the important part for you. Furthermore if you look at page 10 it actually lists the salaries: 5. Compensation of current officers, directors, trustees, and key employees 125, 282. 104, 675. 20, 607 So the actual compensation for officers directors is not $600k but around $125k. On the other hand if you look at the real NCCPA 990 it shows a line 5 that exactly matches the page 7 of that report. So you didn't get your accounting degree from Enron University. As a matter of fact you have shown that you don't understand accounting at all. You don't know how to read critically and you are bad at math. If you want to criticize a foundation for spending less than 5% of its income to grants fine. Or spending around 10% of its income on salaries fine again. If you want to criticize the NCCPA for the CAQs or screwing up the last PANRE I would be in total agreement. On the other hand if you want to accuse the NCCPA of being a scam because you can't figure out the difference between a 501 C (3) and a C (6). Or that you can't figure out how to read a 990 then you probably don't have much credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Febrifuge Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Wow. Let's try a basic over-the-counter cream for a few days, and see if the chapping and redness diminishes, Gonadometrics. I think it will. Try to sleep on your stomach, if you can, and don't do any mountain biking or horseback riding until you check back with us. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWR Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Febrifuge, I love your comment. Can't stop smiling and actually good advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiovolffemtp Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Could you please provide more specifics, for instance: 1) in what state have you sued the NCCPA, on what grounds, and what the court decisions have been 2) in what federal court have you sued the NCCPA and what court procedings have happened there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiovolffemtp Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Could you please provide more specifics, for instance: 1) in what state have you sued the NCCPA, on what grounds, and what the court decisions have been 2) in what federal court have you sued the NCCPA and what court procedings have happened there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cideous Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Just wait until next year when they file, all of the people having to retake the PANRE after the "re-design" should give them all a nice bonus. Every six years is bull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cideous Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Just wait until next year when they file, all of the people having to retake the PANRE after the "re-design" should give them all a nice bonus. Every six years is bull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Every six years is bull. I'm cool with testing every six yrs... IF doing so eliminated the SP requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Every six years is bull. I'm cool with testing every six yrs... IF doing so eliminated the SP requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.