What is known about the Patients Rights Advocate organization PRA, such as how old is it, where does funding come from, who is the leadership, what do data like IRS 990 say...
Master article about PRA-AMA-CPT is here.
x
Yes. There is a reasonably clear picture in the public record, and it makes PatientRightsAdvocate.org (PRA) more interesting than I had appreciated from the lawsuit alone. It is not an old-line patient membership organization. It is a fairly young, founder-driven, philanthropy-funded policy and advocacy organization, with substantial money behind it despite a remarkably small visible governance and staff structure.
How old is it?
PRA was formed in 2017 and received its IRS 501(c)(3) determination in January 2018. Its EIN is 82-3586244. The filings through 2024 list Newton, Massachusetts as its principal location; interestingly, the new AMA complaint says PRA is in the process of moving its incorporation and operations to Florida. (ProPublica)
Its stated activity is unusually focused: research whether hospitals, insurers and other healthcare organizations comply with federal price-transparency requirements, and advocate for consumers, businesses and taxpayers through transparency and competition.
In other words, it is fundamentally a health-policy advocacy and research shop, not an organization principally providing individual patient services. (Inspiring Generosity)
Who runs it?
The central figure is Cynthia A. Fisher, founder and chairman. She is a life-sciences entrepreneur who founded ViaCord and co-founded ViaCell, later sold to PerkinElmer; she is also a Boston Beer Company director. Boston Beer's SEC filing identifies her as the spouse of Boston Beer founder C. James “Jim” Koch. She receives $0 compensation from PRA according to the recent 990s. (PatientRightsAdvocate.org)
The organization's website currently identifies Linda Bent as President and Ilaria Santangelo as Director of Research. Bent is described as a manager at a Boston-area family office.
- The 2024 Form 990 lists Santangelo at $189,006,
- research/communications manager Julia Havlak at $129,704 and
- Marie Larobareier at $115,006.
- Fisher and Bent are listed at zero compensation on that filing. (PatientRightsAdvocate.org)
The 990s tell a striking financial story
PRA went from tiny to very large very quickly. In 2017 it reported only $210,000 of revenue. By 2020 it was receiving $8.6 million; in 2021, $23.2 million; and in 2022, $19.0 million. Nearly all of that early growth was charitable contributions: $8.53M in 2020, $21.36M in 2021 and $16.76M in 2022. (ProPublica)
Then it began spending down that capital aggressively. In 2023, PRA had only $1.88M revenue but spent $13.91M, reducing net assets to $6.97M. In 2024, it received $7.79M but spent $12.09M, leaving $2.67M in year-end net assets. Of 2024 revenue, $5.34M was contributions; another $2.35M was net proceeds from sales of assets. (ProPublica)
I summed the IRS figures from 2017 through 2024: PRA received about $63.0 million in total revenue and spent about $60.3 million. Roughly $54.7 million—87% of all revenue—was reported as contributions. So this is emphatically not an earned-revenue nonprofit. It has had essentially no program-service revenue. (ProPublica)
Where did all those contributions come from?
Here there is an important limitation. PRA's public Form 990 tells us how much it receives in contributions, but generally not who the donors are. The IRS specifically exempts the names and addresses of donors to ordinary public charities from public disclosure. Private foundations are different: their 990-PFs are public, so sometimes the donor can be identified from the donor's return rather than PRA's. (IRS)
And there is one very large clue. A grant database constructed from 990-PF filings identifies the Fisher Koch Family Foundation as having awarded PRA $27.4 million in 2021, for the purpose “support the organization.” The Fisher Koch Family Foundation's IRS records list Cynthia A. Fisher as a director; that foundation made $28.3M in total charitable disbursements in its fiscal 2021. (Granted AI)
I would put a small asterisk beside the exact $27.4M until looking directly at the underlying grant schedule—the grant database is secondary, and foundation and recipient fiscal years need not align. But the evidence is strong that Fisher-family philanthropy was a very important, probably dominant source of PRA's extraordinary early capitalization.
PRA itself gives a lot of money away
This is another feature I had not expected. PRA is not merely spending its money on its own reports and lobbying/advocacy. Its 990 schedules show 28 grants totaling $16.2 million during 2020–2024. Recipients have included Power to the Patients ($4.74M in 2022 and $2.025M in 2023), Families USA, Johns Hopkins, Bentley University, Brown University, U.S. PIRG Education Fund—and also ideologically conservative organizations including ALEC, America First Policy Institute, AMAC Action and Young Americans for Liberty. (Inspiring Generosity)
That mix is actually revealing. It looks less like a conventional partisan advocacy organization than a well-funded campaign organized around the particular economic doctrine of healthcare price transparency, willing to fund allies on both the left and right when they advance that objective.
One eyebrow-raising governance feature
The 2024 990 reports just two voting members of the governing body, of whom only one is independent. It also answers “No” to having a conflict-of-interest policy, whistleblower policy, document-retention policy, and independent review of top-official compensation. Those are disclosures, not evidence of wrongdoing, but they are notably sparse governance arrangements for an organization that has moved more than $60 million through its books. (Inspiring Generosity)
Charity Navigator currently gives PRA 65%, two stars. The rating appears substantially affected by these accountability/governance issues: Charity Navigator notes no independently audited financial statements, no audit-oversight committee, and no records-retention policy. It also notes positively that PRA reports no material diversion of assets or insider loans. So the two-star rating should not be read as an allegation of financial misconduct. (Charity Navigator)
My read (AI)
The shortest characterization would be:
PRA is an eight-to-nine-year-old, Cynthia Fisher-founded healthcare policy nonprofit that was capitalized with tens of millions of philanthropic dollars, apparently including very substantial Fisher-Koch family funding, and has used that capital unusually aggressively for research, publicity, coalition-building, grants, price-transparency advocacy—and now litigation.
That context makes the AMA case more intelligible. This is not a small consumer group that suddenly decided to challenge CPT. It is a comparatively small organization institutionally, but it has had the financial resources to mount sustained national policy campaigns and litigate against major healthcare trade associations.
I think the next worthwhile exercise would be to trace PRA's funding year-by-year from the donor side—searching private-foundation 990-PFs for its EIN, and then mapping its own $16.2M in outgoing grants. That could tell us much more precisely who built PRA financially and where PRA has deployed the money.
##
OK
##
Yes. I traced both directions, and the result is fairly revealing. There is also one qualification to my earlier answer: the Fisher-Koch funding is clearly substantial, but its precise year-by-year accounting is less clean than I initially implied.
1. What PRA itself reports receiving
PRA's Form 990s show a dramatic capitalization beginning in 2020. Its reported contributions and grants total about $54.72 million from 2017 through 2024:
| PRA fiscal year | Contributions/grants reported by PRA |
|---|---|
| 2017 | $210,172 |
| 2018 | $335,056 |
| 2019 | $1,923,818 |
| 2020 | $8,528,246 |
| 2021 | $21,363,091 |
| 2022 | $16,760,000 |
| 2023 | $260,000 |
| 2024 | $5,337,500 |
| Total | $54,717,883 |
The figures come directly from the IRS-derived 990 data. The extraordinary period was 2020–2022: about $46.65 million in contributions in three years. (ProPublica) Earlier years were much smaller, while 2023 saw contributions collapse to $260,000 before rebounding to $5.34 million in 2024. (ProPublica)
2. Can we identify who gave the money?
Only partly—and there is a structural reason.
Ordinary 501(c)(3) public charities do not have to make the names and addresses on their donor Schedule B publicly available. Private foundations are different, because their grantmaking is publicly disclosed; public charities that make grants also leave a donor-side trail. Thus we can search other organizations' filings for PRA's EIN, but there will always be holes. The IRS explicitly confirms this disclosure rule. (IRS)
A donor-side IRS database finds three identifiable grants to PRA in 2022–2023:
| Donor-side record | Year | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Donor Advised Charitable Giving | 2022 | $16,500,000 |
| Corporate Creations Foundation | 2022 | $10,000 |
| Apex Foundation | 2023 | $10,000 |
That $16.5 million item is the striking one. (Inspiring Generosity)
Donor Advised Charitable Giving, EIN 31-1640316, is the entity associated with Schwab Charitable—now branded DAFgiving360. Its IRS filing describes its mission as administering a donor-advised giving program and lists schwabcharitable.org as its website. (Inspiring Generosity) The current DAFgiving360 site confirms that it operates donor-advised fund accounts. (Schwab Brokerage)
So in 2022 we can say something quite precise:
PRA reported $16.76 million in total contributions, and $16.5 million—98.4% of that amount—is identifiable as coming through a Schwab donor-advised fund sponsor.
But we cannot identify from that public record who the underlying donor-adviser was. That's precisely one of the opacity features of DAFs: the recipient's record says Schwab Charitable, not necessarily the person or family whose DAF recommended the grant.
3. And then there is the Fisher Koch Family Foundation
This is the other major trail.
A grant database built from private-foundation 990-PF filings identifies a $27.4 million grant from the Fisher Koch Family Foundation to PatientRightsAdvocate.org, classified in 2021 and described simply as “SUPPORT THE ORGANIZATION.” (Granted AI)
The underlying Fisher Koch Foundation IRS record makes the scale plausible: for its fiscal year ending October 2021, it reported $28.30 million in charitable disbursements altogether. Its directors included Cynthia A. Fisher, Elizabeth F. Koch and Emily F. Koch. (ProPublica)
And a useful point about the name: this Fisher-Koch family connection is Cynthia Fisher and Boston Beer founder C. James “Jim” Koch, her spouse. An SEC filing identifies Fisher simultaneously as founder/chairman of PRA and spouse of Boston Beer founder C. James Koch. (SEC)
However, here is the accounting wrinkle. PRA itself reported only $21.36 million of contributions in calendar 2021, whereas the donor database attributes $27.4 million to Fisher Koch in the foundation's fiscal 2021. (ProPublica)
Those numbers do not reconcile as a simple same-year cash transfer. The foundation's fiscal year ends in October, PRA's ends in December, and there can be differences in payment versus recognition, grant installments, or database aggregation. I therefore would revise my earlier characterization slightly:
The public evidence strongly supports Fisher-family philanthropy as a major source of PRA's early capitalization, but I would not present “$27.4M received by PRA in calendar 2021” as an audited fact without inspecting the underlying grant schedule and accounting dates.
It may well span PRA's 2020 and 2021 receipt periods: PRA reported $8.53M plus $21.36M in contributions across those two calendar years, or $29.89M. But that is an observation about the numbers, not proof of how the Fisher Koch grant was booked. (ProPublica)
4. Where did PRA send its own grants?
Here the public record is remarkably complete. PRA reported 28 grants totaling $16.24 million from 2020 through 2024. The annual map is:
| Year | Grants paid | Major recipients |
|---|---|---|
| 2020 | $53,500 | Independent Women's Voice $53.5K |
| 2021 | $5.36M | Power to the Patients $5.05M; 1065 Institute $250K; Independent Women's Forum $50K; American Research & Policy Institute $10K |
| 2022 | $6.865M | Power to the Patients $4.74M; 1065 Institute $1M; Families USA $500K; RAND $250K; IWF $250K; ALEC $50K; Johns Hopkins $45K; American Transparency $30K |
| 2023 | $2.998M | Power to the Patients $2.025M; Families USA $500K; AMAC Action $150K; Johns Hopkins $135K; One Fact Foundation $100K; U.S. PIRG Education Fund $87.5K |
| 2024 | $960,850 | Bentley $250K; ALEC $230K; Brown $150K; U.S. PIRG $100.85K; America First Policy Institute $100K; Johns Hopkins $90K; Dollar For $20K; Young Americans for Liberty $10K; Power to the Patients $10K |
These amounts are extracted from PRA's IRS Schedule I filings. (Inspiring Generosity)
There are two big conclusions.
5. Nearly three-quarters went to one organization: Power to the Patients
Across the five years, Power to the Patients received $11.825 million—about 73% of every dollar PRA granted to another organization.
And Power to the Patients is not an unrelated outside grantee.
Cynthia Fisher is its co-founder and chairman, while also being founder and chairman of PRA. The 2024 Power to the Patients 990 lists Cynthia Fisher as a board member and Linda Bent as treasurer; Bent is also president/board member of PRA. (SEC)
Power to the Patients was founded in 2021, exactly when the large PRA grants to it began. Its purpose is more overtly public-facing advocacy: the SEC biography describes it as generating public awareness about how upfront health prices can reduce costs and overcharges. (SEC)
So the organizational picture looks something like:
PRA = research, policy, legal work, transparency reports and advocacy
↓ approximately $11.8M
Power to the Patients = mass-market public-awareness/advocacy campaign
The organizations overlap substantially at the leadership level. That fact by itself says nothing improper about the grants, but it is important when describing where PRA's philanthropic capital went. This is much closer to funding a sister advocacy vehicle than to a conventional foundation making independent charitable grants.
6. The remaining grant portfolio is strikingly bipartisan
After Power to the Patients, PRA's grants are quite eclectic.
On one side are Families USA and U.S. PIRG. There are major academic/research organizations—RAND, Johns Hopkins, Brown and Bentley. And there is a substantial cluster of organizations more commonly associated with conservative or free-market policy advocacy—ALEC, Independent Women's Forum, Independent Women's Voice, AMAC Action, America First Policy Institute and Young Americans for Liberty. (Inspiring Generosity)
That fits PRA's own characterization of itself as nonpartisan and suggests something more interesting than an ordinary ideological funding network: price transparency has been deliberately built as a cross-partisan coalition issue. PRA has funded organizations from quite different parts of the political spectrum when they can carry the transparency message to different constituencies.
The $1 million to Families USA and $280,000 to ALEC are a nice illustration of how unusual that coalition is. (Inspiring Generosity)
7. PRA itself is not primarily a grantmaking pass-through
The $16.24M of grants is only about 30% of PRA's $54.72M cumulative contributions. The rest did not simply sit there or get re-granted.
The 2024 filing is particularly informative. PRA spent $12.1M that year, including roughly $4.5M in other professional/service fees, $2.6M in advertising and promotion, and $1.3M in legal fees, while direct grants were about $962K. Its largest listed contractors included Outdoor Solutions for public awareness, CRC Advisors for communications/public affairs, and Crowell & Moring for legal services. (Inspiring Generosity)
That is a useful lens on the AMA lawsuit. PRA has evolved into an organization spending serious money on communications, public campaigns and law, rather than simply commissioning academic reports about hospital prices.
What I think we can now say with confidence
The financial biography is becoming pretty clear.
PRA appears to have been created as a comparatively small Fisher-led advocacy organization, then very heavily capitalized beginning around 2020. Fisher-family philanthropy appears to have been a major component of that capitalization. In 2022, almost the entire year's $16.76M of contributions can be traced publicly to a single $16.5M grant routed through Schwab's donor-advised fund system, although the actual donor behind that DAF is not publicly identified.
PRA then deployed the capital in two ways. It built its own national research/legal/communications operation, and it re-granted $16.24M, nearly three-quarters of which went to the closely affiliated Power to the Patients public-awareness organization. The rest went to an unusually broad coalition spanning academic research institutions, mainstream consumer organizations, and conservative/free-market advocacy groups.
That makes PRA somewhat different from the image created by the phrase “patient advocacy group sues AMA.” It is better understood as a well-capitalized, founder-driven health-policy campaign organization with a deliberate research + litigation + media + coalition strategy.
And one unanswered question is now especially conspicuous: who recommended the $16.5 million Schwab DAF grant in 2022? The public tax record takes us right up to that door and then stops. If that donor could be independently identified, we would have a nearly complete financial origin story for PRA.
#
#
Viacord?
#
Yes—ViaCord was Cynthia Fisher’s original biotech company, and it explains where much of her healthcare-industry background came from.
She founded ViaCord in 1993 as an early private umbilical-cord-blood banking company. The business collected cord blood at birth, processed and cryopreserved the hematopoietic stem cells, and stored them for possible future therapeutic use. She served as founder and CEO. (ONC)
In 2000, Fisher co-founded ViaCell, a broader cellular-medicine company, and ViaCord became a division of ViaCell. ViaCell went public in 2005 and was acquired by PerkinElmer in 2007 for about $300 million, largely for the ViaCord business. (Wikipedia)
So Fisher was not simply a wealthy philanthropist who later became interested in healthcare policy. She was an actual healthcare entrepreneur, fairly early in the commercial stem-cell field. That history also makes her later emphasis on health-price transparency somewhat more intelligible: she had spent years inside a consumer-facing medical service business.
One small wrinkle: sources differ on whether ViaCord was technically founded in 1992 or 1993; Boston Beer’s current biography says 1992, while federal and other biographies say 1993. (The Boston Beer Company - IR Site)
And ViaCord still exists as a cord-blood banking brand, though it long ago ceased being Fisher's independent company. (National Park Foundation)
#
#
What is known about the law firm hired for this lawsuit of PRA vs AMA?
##
Yes. The law firm is quite notable, and the relationship with PRA substantially predates the AMA/CPT lawsuit.
The August 12 complaint is signed by Consovoy McCarthy PLLC of Arlington, Virginia: partners Jeffrey M. Harris and Cameron T. Norris, plus associates Ryan M. Proctor and Nicholas (Nick) Venable.
This is a small, elite constitutional/appellate litigation boutique founded in 2014 by William Consovoy and Thomas McCarthy. Reuters has described it as a central player in the contemporary conservative legal movement.
Its best-known achievement is probably representing Students for Fair Admissions in the successful Supreme Court cases ending race-conscious admissions at Harvard and UNC.
They have also represented Donald Trump, the RNC, Republican officials and plaintiffs in other major constitutional and administrative-law cases. (Reuters)
The most important lawyer here appears to be Jeffrey Harris. He is not merely somebody brought in to devise the CPT lawsuit. Harris has worked with PatientRightsAdvocate.org since at least 2019. When the American Hospital Association sued to block the Trump administration's hospital price-transparency rule in December 2019, PRA was already putting Harris forward as its lawyer and spokesman. In 2020, Harris prepared and filed PRA's amicus briefs supporting HHS's transparency regulation in AHA v. Azar. (PatientRightsAdvocate.org)
So there is a seven-year PRA–Consovoy relationship, not a brand-new alliance.
Harris is an unusually credentialed regulatory litigator.
- He graduated from Harvard Law School,
- clerked for Chief Justice John Roberts
- and two D.C. Circuit judges.
- He later served as the No. 2 official at the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the office that reviews major federal regulations.
- He has argued before the Supreme Court and eight federal circuits. (Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC)
- Particularly relevant here, Harris has developed genuine health-policy specialization: in 2022 he published a 20-page article, “Using ERISA to Ensure Transparent Health Care Prices,” in the ABA Journal of Labor & Employment Law. (JSTOR)
Cameron Norris is another heavyweight. He is a partner, Vanderbilt Law graduate, former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, Judge William Pryor and Judge Karen Henderson. He has argued twice in the Supreme Court; one of those arguments was the Harvard affirmative-action case. His firm biography says he has represented states, prominent nonprofits, the Republican Party and the President of the United States. (Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC)
Ryan Proctor is younger but comes from the same appellate pipeline: Yale, Harvard Law cum laude, editor-in-chief of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, followed by clerkships for Judges Joan Larsen and Gregory Katsas and then Justice Clarence Thomas. (Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC)
Nick Venable is also academically unusual: Yale, a Ph.D. in Classics from Chicago, Stanford Law, and a clerkship with Sixth Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton before appellate practice. (Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC)
There is an even more revealing connection. Harris, Norris and Proctor are already representing PRA in the parallel AHA litigation over the UB-04 hospital billing manual. In that case, AHA sued PRA after PRA announced that it wanted to make the copyrighted UB-04 manual freely available—the same basic “privately copyrighted rules incorporated into mandatory healthcare billing” theory now being deployed against CPT.
- A May 2026 filing lists Harris, Norris and Proctor as PRA's counsel. (Litigation Tracker) Venable appears to have joined that core team for the new AMA case.
That changes how I would characterize the CPT lawsuit. It looks much less like PRA suddenly found a clever copyright theory and much more like an emerging litigation program. Consovoy McCarthy and PRA first spent years litigating and writing about healthcare price transparency; then PRA deliberately challenged the proprietary UB-04 billing manual; now the same lawyers have escalated the strategy to the vastly more consequential CPT system.
There is even a fascinating detail from the UB-04 case. AHA alleges that an associate at Consovoy McCarthy bought a copy of the UB-04 manual in July 2025 using a personal Gmail account, before PRA sent AHA its formal demand asserting the right to publish it. That allegation is AHA's—not an established fact—but it reinforces how deliberately this litigation strategy appears to have been developed. (CCH Business)
So I would describe the team as very serious Supreme Court-caliber conservative/public-law litigators with a longstanding relationship to PRA and a growing specialization in healthcare transparency. The ideological pedigree is unmistakably conservative, but the CPT suit itself is not conventional partisan litigation; its legal theories draw heavily on public-access, fair-use and “no one owns the law” precedents that have attracted support across ideological lines.
The particularly interesting discovery is that the AMA lawsuit is essentially the second installment of the UB-04 strategy, with nearly the identical legal team. That might deserve a paragraph in the blog, because it makes the CPT case look considerably less spontaneous—and considerably more strategic—than the news stories convey.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.