International Academy of Independent Medical Evaluators
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 363654497
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Vancouver, WA, USA
- Phone
- 8444842463
- Rating
- 46
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $270,096
- Expenses
- $248,790
- Assets
- $142,533
- Liabilities
- $205,583
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- James Underhill Psy D MP (President)
- Gary Pushkin MD (President-Elect)
People named in this filing
- Jim Steihl (Director)
- James Underhill Psy D MP (President)
- Gary Pushkin MD (President-Elect)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
International academy of independent medical evaluators is a national professional membership organization chartered in 1987, and incorporated in the state of Illinois in 1989. The mission of the cme program of the international academy of independent medical evaluators is to provide pre-eminent continuing medical education which will build new skills and enhance the skills of physicians and other disability professionals, ensure appropriate accurate disability evaluation and impairment ratings, qualify selected physicians as iaime fellows or other advanced credential, and promulgate a standardized process of evaluation and in disability management. In addition, iaime will aggressively assess and evaluate the complexities of the disabled state, and its causation, designing educational interventions and activities to reverse the medical, legal, and social issues contributing to the workers' condition. Iaime will further this mission by designing new tools to measure outcomes and analyze
What it reported doing in 2024
Develop, augment and support defining of roles and understanding of the responsibilities MDs and DOs in the performance of disability evaluations. Establish scientifically-based methods for assessment of disability. Establish and supervise training in this specialized area of medical practice. Promote, attain, and maintain competence in disability evaluation. Foster research in the field of disability evaluation and promote scholarly and educational endeavors in the field of disability evaluation.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 43
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 7.9%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.57; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.44; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -23.1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $249K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 10 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.