Loading…
Loading…
California · Nonprofit
HEALTH TECH FOR MEDICAID (California) is funded by 4 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $210,000 in grants to it, the largest being NEW PROFIT INC ($100,000). 1 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
HEALTH TECH FOR MEDICAID has grown faster than three-quarters of the 12,769 health nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 12,769 health nonprofits $100k–$1M, FY2024
Revenue, expenses and net assets — each indexed to 100 at its first filing year, so you read the trajectory, not the magnitude. The shaded band is where the middle 50% of its peers' revenue would sit, given their growth.
The funding model — what share of revenue comes from contributions, programs, investments and other sources — and whether it's shifting.
92% of HEALTH TECH FOR MEDICAID’s revenue is contributions — more donation-reliant than the typical peer (78% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 1 of the last 3 reported years ran a deficit.
$10k from 1 funders in 2025, up from $100k and 1 in 2022.
From the IRS filings of HEALTH TECH FOR MEDICAID’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
HEALTH TECH FOR MEDICAID leans on a few funders — its largest provides 48% of grant income and the top three 93%; half comes from just 2 funders.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 2 funders to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2022 100% · 2024 45% · 2025 100% — broadly stable.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
HEALTH TECH FOR MEDICAID draws 71% of its grant income from funders outside California — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 3 states in all.
In-state vs out-of-state, by year
Grantmakers that don’t fund you yet, surfaced two ways: they back organizations that share your funders, or their grantees resemble your mission. The ones both signals agree on come first. Your 4 funders put you under-funded among the 400 organizations that share them.
From the co-funder graph (funders backing at least two comparable organizations, shrunk for grantee count, donor-advised and mega-funds excluded) and the universe embeddings. A research starting point; overlap is association, not a guarantee of fit.
Nonprofits whose mission and program text most resemble this one, by semantic similarity over the universe of US filings — the closest peers, and often the clearest route to shared or prospective funders.
Read directly from this organization’s own Form 990, as neutral context.
98% of spending goes to programs.
Operates in 1 state
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2024 (financials across 2022–2024), and the filings of 4funders that report grants to it. “On record” means captured in the filings we have parsed — a funder that does not e-file, or whose grant detail is not itemized, will not appear. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind. view filing