NeoMed Center

Legal name: Neomed Center Inc Neomed Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
660485440
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2023
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Gurabo, PR, USA
Phone
7877372311
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$88,224,138
Expenses
$90,479,312
Assets
$61,299,872
Liabilities
$18,700,967

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAISY PEREZ MONTANEZ (President)
  • NATIVIDAD FLORES VELAZQUEZ (Vice President)
  • ROSA CASTRO AVILA (Chief Executive Office)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROSA CASTRO AVILA (Chief Executive Office): $315,427 total reported compensation
  • CARLOS M ACEVEDO VILA (General Physician): $274,000 total reported compensation
  • HECTOR J RODRIGUEZ MEDINA (Chief Medical Officer): $179,880 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Prestar servicios de salud a las personas desventajadas, poblaciones vulnerables y comunidad en general, independientemente de su capacidad de pago.

What it reported doing in 2023

Federal grant - section 330. Federal grant - ryan white title i part a federal grant - ryan white title iii part c.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 86% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.4%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 85.2%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.86 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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; 78th 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: -2.6%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.68; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 7 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 87.4% of revenue deployed · 85.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $77.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $315K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.1M reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.