Skip to content
Alliance for Patient Access at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

Alliance for Patient Access

At its core, the ALLIANCE FOR PATIENT ACCESS is a national network of healthcare professionals dedicated to promoting the benefits of patient-centered health care.

$150k
Granted FY2024still arriving
5
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$60k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Health$1.9MPublic Benefit$45k
02FY2024 · 5 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 5 grants below total $141,077, the rows itemized in this filing. The $150,077 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $9,000 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • Under $10k1 grant · $6k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $25k
  • $50k–250k2 grants · $110k
$15,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$3.3M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
INSTITUTE FOR PATIENT ACCESS$60,000
GOUT SUPPORT GROUP OF AMERICA$50,000
NCSL FOUNDATION FOR STATE LEGISLATURES$15,000
LUPUS AND ALLIED DISEASES ASSOCIATION$10,077
NATIONAL KIDNEY FOUDNATION$6,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%LUPUS AND ALLIED DISEASES ASSOCIATION: $10k → 16%NATIONAL KIDNEY FOUDNATION: $6k → 17%PRESCRIPTION PROCESS ADVOCACY NETWORK: $265k → 14%CLINICAL NEUROLOGICAL SOCIETY: $11k → 19%INSTITUTE FOR PATIENT ACCESS: $125k → 12%NCSL FOUNDATION FOR STATE LEGISLATURES: $15k → 12%LUPUS AND ALLIED DISEASES ASSOCIATION: $10k → 16%PRESCRIPTION PROCESS ADVOCACY NETWORK: $92k → 14%INSTITUTE FOR PATIENT ACCESS: $75k → 12%NCSL FOUNDATION FOR STATE LEGISLATURES: $15k → 12%LUPUS AND ALLIED DISEASES ASSOCIATION: $9k → 16%NATIONAL COALITION FOR INFANT HEALTH: $85k → 14%INSTITUTE FOR PATIENT ACCESS: $58k → 12%NCSL FOUNDATION FOR STATE LEGISLATURES: $15k → 12%NATIONAL COALITION FOR INFANT HEALTH: $70k → 14%INSTITUTE FOR PATIENT ACCESS: $55k → 12%DERMA CARE ACCESS NETWORK: $25k → 14%GOUT SUPPORT GROUP OF AMERICA: $50k → 12%INSTITUTE FOR PATIENT ACCESS: $175k → 14%GOUT SUPPORT GROUP OF AMERICA: $50k → 12%PRESCRIPTION PROCESS ADVOCACY NETWORK: $150k → 14%GOUT SUPPORT GROUP OF AMERICA: $50k → 12%GLOBAL ALLIANCE FOR PATIENT ACCESS: $125k → 14%INSTITUTE FOR PATIENT ACCESS: $25k → 12%INSTITUTE FOR PATIENT ACCESS: $60k → 14%INSTITUTE FOR PATIENT ACCESS: $60k → 14%PRESCRIPTION PROCESS ADVOCACY NETWORK: $50k → 14%PARTNERSHIP FOR CARDIOVASCULAR HEALTH: $50k → 14%NATIONAL COALITION FOR INFANT HEALTH: $50k → 14%NATIONAL COALITION FOR INFANT HEALTH: $50k → 14%CAMPAIGN TO PROTECT PATIENT HEALTH: $30k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

95%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.8M · 6 repeat orgs$92k to everyone else

6 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
3

Total granted

$1.8M
$86k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+53%
+480%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 96% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $6k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
HealthCivil RightsPublic BenefitOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • CT
    CAMPAIGN TO PROTECT PATIENT HEALTH
    5× · 2018–2022 · $587k · revenue +183% · 78% of their budget
  • NC
    NATIONAL COALITION FOR INFANT HEALTH
    5× · 2018–2023 · $380k · revenue +275% · 72% of their budget
  • GS
    GOUT SUPPORT GROUP OF AMERICA
    3× · 2022–2024 · $150k · revenue +8%

Funded once

  • PF
    PARTNERSHIP FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CARDIOVASCULAR HEALTHgraduated
    one grant, 2022 · $50k · revenue +34%
  • DC
    DERMA CARE ACCESS NETWORKgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $25k · revenue +480% · 100% of their budget
  • CN
    CLINICAL NEUROLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA INCgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $11k · revenue ×1,185
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
KCNMA1 Channelopathy International Advocacy Foundation

Kfiaf is a patient advocacy group providing education about the rare disease kcnma1 linked channelopathy to families and healthcare workers, as well as helping to promote and facilitate research in this area. we communicate through…

Health
2
American Association of Kidney Patients Inc

AAKP is dedicated to improving the lives and long-term outcome of kidney patients. Cont on Sch O.

Health
3
Global Alliance for Patient Access

The global alliance for patient access (gafpa) is an international platform for healthcare providers and patient advocates seeking to raise awareness about the benefits of patient-centered healthcare.

Health
4
Neuropathy Action Foundation

To educate the general public, healthcare providers, patients and decision makers on what Neuropathy is and to help Neuropathy patients obtain access to individualized treatments.

Health
5
Alliance for Patient Access

At its core, the alliance for patient access is a national network of healthcare professionals dedicated to promoting the benefits of patient-centered health care. afpa accomplishes its mission through educating clinicians on issues…

Health
6
Nurse Practitioner Healthcare Foundation

To improve health status and quality of care through nurse practitioner innovations in research, education, health policy, service, and philanthropy. NPHF focuses on making high quality, effective care accessible.

Education
7
American Association of Naturopathic Physicians

To enhance human health and wellness by advancing the profession of naturopathic medicine.

—
8
National Patient Advocate Foundation

The national patient advocate foundation, the advocacy affiliate of the patient advocate foundation, represents the patient voice, both the powerful stories of individuals and the collective needs of the community. our programs are…

Health
9
Systemic Lupus International Collaborati ng Clinics
Health
10
Coalition for Americas Health Inc

To prevent and control chronic diseases, also called non-communicable diseases or NCDs, in the region of the Americas by promoting an environment conducive to health, well-being, social and economic development. This mission is…

Health
11
International Pediatric Nephrology Assn Nationwide Children's Ctr for Faculty De

The international pediatric nephrology association, inc. (ipna) is a membership organization that has an international membership of over 1,000 pediatric nephrologists from 89 countries worldwide. ipna promotes knowledge and communication…

—
12
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation

To cure cf and provide all people with cf the opportunity to lead long, fulfilling lives by funding research and drug development, partnering with the cf community, and advancing high-quality, specialized care.

Health
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Campaign to Protect Patient Health; the most unlike its peers is Clinical Neurological Society of America Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

10 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

4
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
10/10
Grantees still filing
8/10
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

INSTITUTE FOR PATIENT ACCESS: $633,000 · HealthINSTITUTE FOR PATIENT ACCESSGOUT SUPPORT GROUP OF AMERICA: $150,000 · HealthGOUT SUPPORT GROUP OF AMERICA+2 more: $17,000 · HealthCAMPAIGN TO PROTECT PATIENT HEALTH: $587,000 · OtherCAMPAIGN TO PROTECT PATIENT HEALTHPARTNERSHIP FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CARDIOVASCULAR HEALTH: $50,000 · OtherPARTNERSHIP FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CARDI…LUPUS AND ALLIED DISEASES ASSOCIATION INC: $29,260 · OtherDERMA CARE ACCESS NETWORK: $25,000 · OtherNATIONAL COALITION FOR INFANT HEALTH: $380,000 · Civil RightsNATIONAL COALITION FOR…NCSL FOUNDATION FOR STATE LEGISLATURES: $45,000 · Public Benefit
Health$800,000Other$691,260Civil Rights$380,000Public Benefit$45,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetINSTITUTE FOR PATIENT ACCESS: $633,000 over 8y, 55% of budgetCAMPAIGN TO PROTECT PATIENT HEALTH: $587,000 over 5y, 78% of budgetNATIONAL COALITION FOR INFANT HEALTH: $380,000 over 5y, 72% of budgetGOUT SUPPORT GROUP OF AMERICA: $150,000 over 3y, 17% of budgetPARTNERSHIP FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CARDIOVASCULAR HEALTH: $50,000 over 1y, 4.8% of budgetNCSL FOUNDATION FOR STATE LEGISLATURES: $45,000 over 3y, 0.3% of budgetLUPUS AND ALLIED DISEASES ASSOCIATION INC: $29,260 over 3y, 1.0% of budgetDERMA CARE ACCESS NETWORK: $25,000 over 1y, 100% of budgetNational Kidney Foundation Inc: $6,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a set of overlaps that mostly run through this funder rather than between each other.

Pharmaceutical Resear…
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of AmericaDC13.4× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Alliance for Patient Access funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Alliance for Patient Access. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%5%19%42%75%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Alliance for Patient Access?

    Find your warmest path to Alliance for Patient Access through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 10 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Alliance for Patient Access’ filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home