Evidence for Healthcare Improvement

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463250612
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
6175284013
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health - General and Rehabilitative N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,211,502
Expenses
$8,945,426
Assets
$11,859,724
Liabilities
$6,556,957

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SARAH K EMOND (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • SARAH K EMOND (PRESIDENT & CEO): $525,925 total reported compensation
  • DAVID RIND (CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER): $425,788 total reported compensation
  • DANIEL OLLENDORF (CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER): $366,762 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Icer seeks to provide an independent source of evidence - free from financial conflicts of interest to help patients today and in the future by catalyzing a movement toward fair pricing, fair access, and future innovation across the entire us health care system.

What it reported doing in 2024

Icer's program to evaluate new technologies, including new drugs at or near the time of fda approval, provides an independent analysis of the comparative effectiveness of new technologies, along with an associated health-benefit price benchmark, with the objective of helping decision-makers understand and apply evidence to improve value throughout the health care system. The robust research conducted to produce reports for the technology assessment program is complemented by an extensive patient and stakeholder engagement program that ensures that the experience of patients and their families are at the center of the work. The reports of the technology assessment program are vetted through three regional collaboratives of independent experts in the evaluation and application of evidence: the California technology assessment forum (ctaf), the midwest comparative effectiveness public advisory council (midwest cepac), and the new england comparative effectiveness public advisory council (new england cepac). For each panel, independent clinicians, methodologists, and public representatives convene several times a year at public meetings to review objective evidence reports produced by icer and to develop recommendations for how stakeholders can apply evidence to improve the quality and value of health care. All three panels directly engage clinicians, patients, and payers during these public meetings to discuss application of the evidence for clinical decision-making, benefit design, and patient and clinician tools to improve clinical care and patient outcomes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.7%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 77.3%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $66.45 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.9%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.33; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.55; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 33.6%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.7% of revenue deployed · 77.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $6.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $526K · 20 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.2M reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.