Molecular Evidence Development Consortium

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472986038
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2018
Official website data refreshed
Jun 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Rexburg, ID, USA
Phone
2083563677
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Medical Disciplines Research

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$343,299
Expenses
$865,406
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANE J DICKSON MD (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANE J DICKSON MD (CEO): $157,154 total reported compensation
  • REBECCA OWENS (COO): $117,181 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Med-c was a nonprofit organization created to help make personalized medicine a reality. Med-c was bringing together each of health care's key groups - patient, physicians, payors, labs, pharma and regulators to help unlock the tremendous potential of personalized medicine. To achieve this goal, med-c had launched a vast database that gathered genomic-level data on cancer patients and thorough information about their treatments and clinical outcomes.unfortunately due to unforeseeable regulatory circumstances med-c had to discontinue it's operations.

What it reported doing in 2018

Med-c began operations in 2015, with the goal of establishing information technology infrastructure to do cancer research, irb research protocol, and involvement in national cancer programs with the goal of improving cancer treatments and outcomes for cancer patients. The information technology infrastructure went operational during 2017, however due to changes in governmental regulations med-c was unfortunately forced to shut down it's n1 registry and discountinue its operations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 74% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 2
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.1%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 80.3%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -152.1%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.7%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 54.5% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -13.4% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -22.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.1% of revenue deployed · 80.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $695K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $157K · 5 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $159K reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2015 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.