National ACO and value-based-care membership association
One uniform surface for comparison; detailed evidence is below.
The score summarizes assessed evidence; evidence coverage is reported separately.
| Accounting category | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Program services | $5.90M | 97.03% |
| Investment income | $112,321 | 1.85% |
| Other revenue | $68,281 | 1.12% |
| Total | $6.08M | 100.00% |
The filing reports nearly all revenue as program-service revenue but does not identify which ACOs, health systems, physician groups, vendors, or other entities paid it. Paid partners may receive access or visibility but do not hold provider-member voting rights.
Primary constituency: Accountable care organizations and other value-based-care provider entities; provider members, not individual physicians, hold formal membership rights.
Physician alignment: Role dependent; strongest for ACO and value-based-care leaders rather than individual physician representation.
Funding model: Organizational membership and event/program support; individual physician funding is not the core model.
Primary influence: See the detailed authority and influence analysis.
NAACOS is a national organization for ACO and value-based-care provider entities rather than a direct individual-physician membership society. FY2024 revenue was $6.08 million and was almost entirely classified as program-service revenue, but the public filing does not identify the ACOs, health systems, physician groups, or commercial entities that supplied it. Provider members hold formal voting rights, while commercial partners have access and sponsorship pathways without the same vote. NAACOS's advocacy and education generally align with accountable-care and value-based-payment goals. Its normalized C grade reflects good mission alignment and a useful provider-governance distinction, tempered by unresolved payer concentration, indirect physician representation, and limited independent outcome attribution.
One sentence: NAACOS is a mission-aligned ACO advocacy organization with provider-member voting rights, but it represents organizations rather than physicians directly and does not disclose who ultimately supplies most revenue.
Every organization uses the same twelve evidence sections and order.
Organization type: National ACO and value-based-care membership association
Primary constituency: Accountable care organizations and other value-based-care provider entities; provider members, not individual physicians, hold formal membership rights.
Mission: Advance accountable care and value-based payment by supporting ACOs and advocating for policies that improve care and lower cost.
Scale: Nearly 500 ACO and value-based-care entities are reported in current official materials.
| Leader | Current role | Authority context |
|---|---|---|
| Jen Moore | Board chair | Provider-member governance |
| Arshad Rahim, MD | Chair-elect | Provider-member governance |
| Melanie Matthews | Past chair | Board governance |
| Stephen Nuckolls | Treasurer | Financial oversight |
| Emily Brower | Chief executive officer | Operational leadership |
Period: Fiscal year ended December 31, 2024
Status: Filed Form 990
Accounting categories are presented exactly as reported.
| Accounting category | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Program services | $5.90M | 97.0% |
| Investment income | $112,321 | 1.8% |
| Other revenue | $68,281 | 1.1% |
The filing reports nearly all revenue as program-service revenue but does not identify which ACOs, health systems, physician groups, vendors, or other entities paid it. Paid partners may receive access or visibility but do not hold provider-member voting rights.
| Entity or relationship | Relationship type | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| NAACOS Action Fund | Separate political committee | Political receipts and spending remain distinct. |
| Institute for Accountable Care | Related policy and research organization | Separate governance and finances must not be combined with NAACOS. |
Related entities, foundations, PACs, trusts, networks, and LLCs remain financially and legally separate unless a documented transfer is included in the reviewed organization’s accounts.
| Influencer | Evidence classification | Evidence-supported relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Provider-member ACOs | Directly documented | Hold formal membership and governance rights. |
| Board and CEO | Directly documented | Set and execute policy. |
| Commercial partners and sponsors | Directly documented relationship | Receive access and visibility; financial magnitude is not fully allocated. |
| Federal payment agencies | Directly documented external environment | CMS policy materially shapes the organization's agenda but does not constitute organizational control. |
Interpretation: A documented relationship may create influence or incentives; it does not by itself establish control, misconduct, or improper capture.
| Mission or public commitment | Alignment assessment | Documented action or tension |
|---|---|---|
| ACO and value-based-care advocacy | Aligned | Current policy activity directly tracks mission. |
| Physician payment reform | Generally aligned | Positions support sustainable participation in value-based models. |
| Individual physician voice | Mixed | Representation is primarily through provider organizations. |
| Partner access safeguards | Partially aligned | Voting distinction exists, but receipts and influence pathways are not fully transparent. |
| Physician or member segment | Evidence-supported assessment |
|---|---|
| ACO and value-based-care organizations | Primary formal constituency |
| Physician-led ACOs | Direct organizational pathway |
| Employed physicians | Indirect representation through organizations |
| Independent physicians | Representation depends on ACO structure |
| Specialty and rural segments | Participation and outcomes not quantified |
No material final adverse enforcement finding against NAACOS was identified in the reviewed sources. Policy advocacy and political activity are separately disclosed and are not themselves adverse findings.
NAACOS cites accountable-care savings and quality evidence, but system-level results cannot be attributed solely to the association.
Normalized score: 76/100 (C). Raw evaluated points: 57/75. Evidence completeness: 75%.
| Dimension | Score | Grade | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financial Transparency and Source Identification | 9/15 | D | 60% of dimension maximum |
| Funding Independence and Concentration Risk | NE | NE | Not evaluated |
| Mission-to-Action Alignment | 17/20 | B | 85% of dimension maximum |
| Physician or Member Governance and Representation | 12/15 | B | 80% of dimension maximum |
| Breadth of Support Across Physician Segments | NE | NE | Not evaluated |
| Leadership, Conflict Management, and Accountability | 7/10 | C | 70% of dimension maximum |
| Legal, Regulatory, and Ethical Record | 8/10 | B | 80% of dimension maximum |
| Outcomes and Public Accountability | 4/5 | B | 80% of dimension maximum |
Information most likely to change this assessment: current audited financials, mutually exclusive payer-class schedules, top-funder concentration, current bylaws and conflict records, segment-level participation, and independently validated outcomes.
Publication status: Public review. A last-link check and final editorial approval are required before each release.
Editorial independence: The reviewed organization did not approve, edit, or veto the findings or score. Factual corrections may be submitted through the published corrections process.
Scope: Verification is limited to publicly accessible records. Private contracts, nonpublic minutes, sealed proceedings, and undisclosed conflicts are outside the available evidence.
Source rule: Primary and official records were preferred. Accounting categories were not converted into payer identities. Related entities were kept separate. Allegations were not treated as findings.
Verification: current leaders and major financial arithmetic were checked for this publication batch. Material corrections and future updates follow the published verification process.
