Planned Parenthood of the Heartland - Is It Doing As Well As the Whole Organization
A few days ago, I did a quick look at how profitable abortion has been on the national level for Planned Parenthood. Of course that is the national combination of all the affiliates as well as what the national group gets itself.
Being that we have an abortion mill in DBQ run by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland (PPH), I decided to check things out, esp after I heard something about how the DBQ site was doing. So I decided to see if I could find anything specific. Unfortunately I was unable to get specifics so I won't go into details. But when I checked out how PPH was doing because I saw their latest annual report was out, I decided there may be some truth to what I heard. You'll figure out what I mean when I look at what I found out about PPH.
A couple of quick bits of background info. Over the past few years what is now PPH was several affiliates from Iowa, plus ones in Nebraska, Arkansas & Oklahoma. The older reports cover only the smaller versions of PPH. So making comparisons is difficult, for most things.
Also the report goes from July to June. So 2012 covers July 2011 to June 2012. 2011 would cover the 2010-11 period & 2010 would cover that period in 2009-10. As they expanded they would include the data for that year from the groups they merged with. But there is no way to find the info of the affiliates before the merger. Like I said, it makes it difficult to make accurate comparisons.
The 1st thing I checked out was how many abortions had been done in 2011-12. It was 5832, that was up from 2010-11 when they did 5504. 09-10 showed 5685. Why did the number go down after some of the mergers & then back up this past year? I am not completely sure. I suspect at least part of this year's increase is due to more sites offering telemed abortions. That is as far as I dare hazard a guess.
They claim that those who had an abortion made up only 2% of those served. As I have pointed out before, that is no where near an accurate reflection as they count the same individual for each part, exam, ultrasound or whatever, it makes the numbers look lower.
Interestingly enough, for 2012 they showed 4 adoption referrals as an actual part of their chart of services, but only as an aside. The 2011 report doesn't mention any & the 2010 report mentions in the text that they did 7 referrals. Not exactly the numbers you would expect if PPH was honestly presenting all the alternatives to women. However, I am sure they see each of those referrals as a failure on their part since they lost an opportunity to make money on abortions.
Now lets get to the important info, income & expenses. Income includes that from all sources; donations, government funding, investments etc. Yes, they do have investment income as well as the mysterious misc.
A couple of comments on that before I go on. Most non-profits have some money invested. The idea is to have a sure source of income from dividends to fall back on. The only problem is, the PPH reports don't tell us the value of those investments. So we don't have a totally accurate idea of what they are actually worth. That info is buried in the tax forms the national level puts out. Those forms lump the various affiliates together as 1.
As for misc., I suspect some of that could be interest from savings &/or checking accounts if they are interest bearing.
So what did I discover.
For 2011-12 PPH took in $27.48 million & spent $31.8 million. Yes, apparently they lost money. $4.32 million to be exact. That would explain the closing of some of the Iowa sites this past year. They had to cut their losses. Remember, they may be defined as non-profit, but they put many for-profit companies to shame with the income over expense bottom line.
1 of their problems is that there contributions are way down from last year, despite a larger base. The 2012 report shows that they got $6.97 million. 2011's report showed that they got $11.3 million. The 2010 report show $6.9 million. If, as Jill June claims, they had some "tremendous fundraising events", why are contributions down? Tremendous should mean successful in generating more revenue, not just a fun, if debauched, time had by all.
The report brags about them getting $23,000 from 600+ donors after the announcement that Koman was defunding them, something Koman reversed after PP used Mafia-like strong arm tactics on them. If you average the donations out using only the 600 donors, the amount comes to a mere $38.333 per donor. & since it was more than 600 donors, that means the actual per donor amount was less.
She goes on to brag that with the nearly (emphasis mine) $60,000 in grants & donations they will be able to expand their cancer screenings. Given how little that amount is, it is doubtful that they will do more than make it look like they are expanding. If they were as serious as they claim, why aren't they trying expand to offering mammograms like they have made it sound like they provide, but don't. & the number of breast exams they have provided is down from last year, despite the larger number of sites due to the expansions. The did 19104 in 2012, 19826 in 2011. The 2011 number is up from the 2010 number of 19034. But none of these numbers shows that women are flocking to them like they claim.
Another thing PPH likes to brag about, especially when they talk about expanding to rural parts of Iowa is the huge need for primary care for lower income people that they wouldn't otherwise get. If that was so true, then why did they close the Storm Lake & Knoxville locations? Or the Newton site? Or the Monticello on a couple years ago? All of these are in what are rural areas they claim has that huge need. I remember how they claimed there was a huge need for the part time site in Monticello so that it would be convenient for women who needed their services. Yet when they closed it less than 2 years after opening the claim was women were going to the CR & DBQ sites. The reality is, they weren't able to make money, their real concern.
Something else interesting in the 2012 report is the fact that for the 1st time they talk about the "uncompensated charity care". This is the money they claim they absorbed because clients didn't have adequate insurance or financial means. Why are they all of a sudden concerned about showing this? To try & explain away their loss this year?
The other question I have is how much of this was real costs absorbed & how much of this was the disallowed amounts from medicaid & other insurance plans? Much of that is not actual loss since this is figured in already when they set their rates.
Interestingly, the amount they said they provided in uncompensated care is over $8.5 million nearly double the amount of the $4.32 million loss they apparently suffered.
Since we are on the subject of the health care they provide, let's look at the actual numbers. Specifically the primary care they say women (as well as me & children) aren't getting elsewhere. OK, they do breast exams, pap tests & colposcopies/biopsies. But primary care is much much more than that. What they provide for that would be found under what they label as family practice & prenatal pediatric care. In 2012 they provided 609 prenatal/peds services & 1982 family practice services. (Note: I am saying services since that number could be multiple times for a single person, something they like to do to inflate numbers to hide the size of the number of abortions they do.) That comes to a total of 2951 services. For 2011 & 2010 they only say the number of family practice services provided. I suspect that those numbers include the separate prenatal/peds numbers in the 2012 numbers. The number of services in 2011 was 2315 & in 2010 they were 2556. None of those are huge, less than 1% of total services. If the need was really there, these numbers would be huger.
The 1 area they have had a healthy growth in is in the dollar amount of government grants. In 2010 they were $1.4 million, in 2011 they went up to $1.7 million. Then we come to 2012 when they reached almost $2.7 million. The amount of grants almost doubled in 2 years. & this is just grants. They also get a huge amount from medicaid. That number is buried in the amount they get for patient services They say that 50% of the services went to those under the poverty level, 9% for those between 100-150%. Add to that another 5% for those at 150-200% of the poverty level. So you can be sure that a huge part of that money came from us taxpayers.
You also see another reason why they are afraid of losing government money. It is the only thing that keeps them profitable.
If the loss for 2012 is real, not based on inflated costs, then it would explain not only the closings, but the huge expansion of telemed abortions. They need the money. Then again this could just be a ploy to make them look like they are not doing as well as they actually are so they could play on people's sympathy to get donations up, thus the mention of the charity care given.
There is also a 3rd possibility, the loss is a 1 year thing as a result of the expense from expanding telemed abortion. Even this loss could be a result of some creative bookkeeping. The last few years they have been running a huge capital campaign that has raised over $9 million. Since the assets they have are NOT mentioned in the report they money could be invested, explaining the huge jump in investment as well as that of misc. income. They could be waiting until the 2013 fiscal year to transfer the money to cover those costs.
Whatever the real reason for the "loss" I highly doubt that it is serious, or a sign of things to come, (OH, IF ONLY!!!!!) Instead, I suspect it is being used to justify more government money. more contributions & more PR mileage to hide the truth about their using these funds to expand their abortion business.
Some of the local sites still open are probably on the edge. I suspect that DBQ is 1 of them. The number of people going there is up after their move & adding of telemed abortions. But probably not enough to break even. I also suspect that as long as possible, they will do all they can to keep it open. In part because of the strong Pro-life presence compared to much of the state, partly because DBQ is supposed to be strongly Catholic, so having a successful abortion mill here would be a way of mocking God as well as showing how out of touch the Catholic Church is with the average Catholic. Of course, their definition of average Catholic is one who dissents with the magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church, not a person who does live the faith.
I also suspect that at least 1 future merger is in the works. None of the PP of Central Oklahoma (PPCO) sites offer actual abortions. The national federation has ordered all of their affiliates to start offering abortions by this year. Oklahoma requires a doctor to be physically present when prescribing RU-486, effectively banning telemed abortions. It also requires an abortionist to offer the woman the opportunity to hear the fetal heartbeat before the abortion. So either PPCO will have to start offering surgical abortions or merge with an affiliate that already offers abortions at 1 of their sites. PPH is the logical choice. & their so-called loss will definitely not be an impediment. It will be a justification.
Being that we have an abortion mill in DBQ run by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland (PPH), I decided to check things out, esp after I heard something about how the DBQ site was doing. So I decided to see if I could find anything specific. Unfortunately I was unable to get specifics so I won't go into details. But when I checked out how PPH was doing because I saw their latest annual report was out, I decided there may be some truth to what I heard. You'll figure out what I mean when I look at what I found out about PPH.
A couple of quick bits of background info. Over the past few years what is now PPH was several affiliates from Iowa, plus ones in Nebraska, Arkansas & Oklahoma. The older reports cover only the smaller versions of PPH. So making comparisons is difficult, for most things.
Also the report goes from July to June. So 2012 covers July 2011 to June 2012. 2011 would cover the 2010-11 period & 2010 would cover that period in 2009-10. As they expanded they would include the data for that year from the groups they merged with. But there is no way to find the info of the affiliates before the merger. Like I said, it makes it difficult to make accurate comparisons.
The 1st thing I checked out was how many abortions had been done in 2011-12. It was 5832, that was up from 2010-11 when they did 5504. 09-10 showed 5685. Why did the number go down after some of the mergers & then back up this past year? I am not completely sure. I suspect at least part of this year's increase is due to more sites offering telemed abortions. That is as far as I dare hazard a guess.
They claim that those who had an abortion made up only 2% of those served. As I have pointed out before, that is no where near an accurate reflection as they count the same individual for each part, exam, ultrasound or whatever, it makes the numbers look lower.
Interestingly enough, for 2012 they showed 4 adoption referrals as an actual part of their chart of services, but only as an aside. The 2011 report doesn't mention any & the 2010 report mentions in the text that they did 7 referrals. Not exactly the numbers you would expect if PPH was honestly presenting all the alternatives to women. However, I am sure they see each of those referrals as a failure on their part since they lost an opportunity to make money on abortions.
Now lets get to the important info, income & expenses. Income includes that from all sources; donations, government funding, investments etc. Yes, they do have investment income as well as the mysterious misc.
A couple of comments on that before I go on. Most non-profits have some money invested. The idea is to have a sure source of income from dividends to fall back on. The only problem is, the PPH reports don't tell us the value of those investments. So we don't have a totally accurate idea of what they are actually worth. That info is buried in the tax forms the national level puts out. Those forms lump the various affiliates together as 1.
As for misc., I suspect some of that could be interest from savings &/or checking accounts if they are interest bearing.
So what did I discover.
For 2011-12 PPH took in $27.48 million & spent $31.8 million. Yes, apparently they lost money. $4.32 million to be exact. That would explain the closing of some of the Iowa sites this past year. They had to cut their losses. Remember, they may be defined as non-profit, but they put many for-profit companies to shame with the income over expense bottom line.
1 of their problems is that there contributions are way down from last year, despite a larger base. The 2012 report shows that they got $6.97 million. 2011's report showed that they got $11.3 million. The 2010 report show $6.9 million. If, as Jill June claims, they had some "tremendous fundraising events", why are contributions down? Tremendous should mean successful in generating more revenue, not just a fun, if debauched, time had by all.
The report brags about them getting $23,000 from 600+ donors after the announcement that Koman was defunding them, something Koman reversed after PP used Mafia-like strong arm tactics on them. If you average the donations out using only the 600 donors, the amount comes to a mere $38.333 per donor. & since it was more than 600 donors, that means the actual per donor amount was less.
She goes on to brag that with the nearly (emphasis mine) $60,000 in grants & donations they will be able to expand their cancer screenings. Given how little that amount is, it is doubtful that they will do more than make it look like they are expanding. If they were as serious as they claim, why aren't they trying expand to offering mammograms like they have made it sound like they provide, but don't. & the number of breast exams they have provided is down from last year, despite the larger number of sites due to the expansions. The did 19104 in 2012, 19826 in 2011. The 2011 number is up from the 2010 number of 19034. But none of these numbers shows that women are flocking to them like they claim.
Another thing PPH likes to brag about, especially when they talk about expanding to rural parts of Iowa is the huge need for primary care for lower income people that they wouldn't otherwise get. If that was so true, then why did they close the Storm Lake & Knoxville locations? Or the Newton site? Or the Monticello on a couple years ago? All of these are in what are rural areas they claim has that huge need. I remember how they claimed there was a huge need for the part time site in Monticello so that it would be convenient for women who needed their services. Yet when they closed it less than 2 years after opening the claim was women were going to the CR & DBQ sites. The reality is, they weren't able to make money, their real concern.
Something else interesting in the 2012 report is the fact that for the 1st time they talk about the "uncompensated charity care". This is the money they claim they absorbed because clients didn't have adequate insurance or financial means. Why are they all of a sudden concerned about showing this? To try & explain away their loss this year?
The other question I have is how much of this was real costs absorbed & how much of this was the disallowed amounts from medicaid & other insurance plans? Much of that is not actual loss since this is figured in already when they set their rates.
Interestingly, the amount they said they provided in uncompensated care is over $8.5 million nearly double the amount of the $4.32 million loss they apparently suffered.
Since we are on the subject of the health care they provide, let's look at the actual numbers. Specifically the primary care they say women (as well as me & children) aren't getting elsewhere. OK, they do breast exams, pap tests & colposcopies/biopsies. But primary care is much much more than that. What they provide for that would be found under what they label as family practice & prenatal pediatric care. In 2012 they provided 609 prenatal/peds services & 1982 family practice services. (Note: I am saying services since that number could be multiple times for a single person, something they like to do to inflate numbers to hide the size of the number of abortions they do.) That comes to a total of 2951 services. For 2011 & 2010 they only say the number of family practice services provided. I suspect that those numbers include the separate prenatal/peds numbers in the 2012 numbers. The number of services in 2011 was 2315 & in 2010 they were 2556. None of those are huge, less than 1% of total services. If the need was really there, these numbers would be huger.
The 1 area they have had a healthy growth in is in the dollar amount of government grants. In 2010 they were $1.4 million, in 2011 they went up to $1.7 million. Then we come to 2012 when they reached almost $2.7 million. The amount of grants almost doubled in 2 years. & this is just grants. They also get a huge amount from medicaid. That number is buried in the amount they get for patient services They say that 50% of the services went to those under the poverty level, 9% for those between 100-150%. Add to that another 5% for those at 150-200% of the poverty level. So you can be sure that a huge part of that money came from us taxpayers.
You also see another reason why they are afraid of losing government money. It is the only thing that keeps them profitable.
If the loss for 2012 is real, not based on inflated costs, then it would explain not only the closings, but the huge expansion of telemed abortions. They need the money. Then again this could just be a ploy to make them look like they are not doing as well as they actually are so they could play on people's sympathy to get donations up, thus the mention of the charity care given.
There is also a 3rd possibility, the loss is a 1 year thing as a result of the expense from expanding telemed abortion. Even this loss could be a result of some creative bookkeeping. The last few years they have been running a huge capital campaign that has raised over $9 million. Since the assets they have are NOT mentioned in the report they money could be invested, explaining the huge jump in investment as well as that of misc. income. They could be waiting until the 2013 fiscal year to transfer the money to cover those costs.
Whatever the real reason for the "loss" I highly doubt that it is serious, or a sign of things to come, (OH, IF ONLY!!!!!) Instead, I suspect it is being used to justify more government money. more contributions & more PR mileage to hide the truth about their using these funds to expand their abortion business.
Some of the local sites still open are probably on the edge. I suspect that DBQ is 1 of them. The number of people going there is up after their move & adding of telemed abortions. But probably not enough to break even. I also suspect that as long as possible, they will do all they can to keep it open. In part because of the strong Pro-life presence compared to much of the state, partly because DBQ is supposed to be strongly Catholic, so having a successful abortion mill here would be a way of mocking God as well as showing how out of touch the Catholic Church is with the average Catholic. Of course, their definition of average Catholic is one who dissents with the magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church, not a person who does live the faith.
I also suspect that at least 1 future merger is in the works. None of the PP of Central Oklahoma (PPCO) sites offer actual abortions. The national federation has ordered all of their affiliates to start offering abortions by this year. Oklahoma requires a doctor to be physically present when prescribing RU-486, effectively banning telemed abortions. It also requires an abortionist to offer the woman the opportunity to hear the fetal heartbeat before the abortion. So either PPCO will have to start offering surgical abortions or merge with an affiliate that already offers abortions at 1 of their sites. PPH is the logical choice. & their so-called loss will definitely not be an impediment. It will be a justification.
Labels: Planned Parenthood, Telemed Abortions
posted by Al @ 3:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home