Jump to content
  • Sign Up
  • Why Form Another Non Profit for Rosacea Sufferers?

    What do you expect from a non profit organization for rosacea? Should the administrators and founders of the non profit organization use most of the donations to pay private contractors that are owned by the director of the non profit organization who also sits on the board of directors? Or should the non profit for rosacea spend most of its donations on conventions for dermatologists?

      by Brady Barrows, Founder, RRDi

      The chief reason I formed the RRDi was when I began investigating how the National Rosacea Society (NRS) spends its donated funds (60%) on private contractors spending about 10% for rosacea research. However, the sad reality is that most rosacea sufferers could care less how the NRS spends its donations. If they did they would do something about this. If you do care, why not read the facts below: 

      On average over many years, the NRS spends approximately 10% to 11% on rosacea research while receiving in donations millions of dollars. To put that in terms you can easily understand, for every dollar the NRS receives in donations 10 cents is spent on rosacea research. The rest goes mostly, over 60%, to private contractors that are owned by the president/director of the NRS, Sam Huff. 

      The NRS is a 501 c 3 non profit organization. Many are unaware that all non profits who make $50,000 or more in a year are required to file Form 990 with the Internal Revenue Service of the USA which is then public knowledge for anyone to read. In the past Form 990 has not required disclosure of who donated the funds (in 2015 there was a notable change about disclosure of donated funds) however, the non profit organization is required to show the percentage of funds from the public or whether the funds are private donations. Several years ago I began reading the Form 990 that the NRS reports and was shocked at how the funds were spent. I encourage you to read all these Form 990 reports that the NRS files with the IRS.

      For instance, in 1998 the NRS received in donations $1,148,375 (over a million dollars!). Of this, only 2.15% of this amount was from the public while 97.85% of this amount came from pharmaceutical companies. Of this total amount the NRS spent only $16,118 (1.5%) on rosacea research. [1] That means that for every dollar donated in 1998 only 1.5 cents was spent that year on rosacea research. To put this in a visual graph see below:
      1998NRSdonationsexpenses.png
      The total expenses that year were $830,856 of which $516,156 (62%) was spent on one private contractor, Sam Huff and Associates. Sam Huff is the director of the NRS. At the time, I thought $1.1 million dollars could be better spent. Why wasn't $1 million spent on rosacea research and the rest on running the organization? I thought rosacea sufferers could do a lot better with donated funds than how the NRS has been spending donated funds. This was the first Form 990 that I read and it knocked my socks off. Are you not shocked as well? Read the NRS Form 990 for 1998 yourself if you have doubts.

      I then discovered a lot about non profits by educating myself on how they work. For example, I learned that many non profit organizations spend very little on their 'mission' and give huge amounts of donated funds to the directors, salaried employees, or to private contractors. For more information on this, read Comparing Non Profit Organizations with Research.

      It is not easy to form a non profit organization. The IRS has made it quite difficult to obtain the 501 c 3 recognition. Basically non profits can organize just about any way they want but getting the IRS to recognize and approve a non profit is another matter that would take too many paragraphs to explain. However, I was able to form the RRDi and get the IRS to approve our non profit and have the recognition letter to prove it. However running a non profit with total volunteers is another matter that is something to write about later. Back to the NRS. I kept following how the NRS spends its donated funds as a non profit.

      The pattern of the NRS since 1998 has been basically the same. 1998 was the only year that the NRS spent only 1.5% on rosacea research. The years since that banner year of 1998 when the NRS received over $1.1 Million US Dollars the NRS has decided to up the money on rosacea research from 1.5% to about 10% on average. Whatever the amount donated the total spending on rosacea research remains about 10 per cent on average after that banner year of 1998. It should be noted that during this same period around 60% of the donations is spent to private contractors owned by Sam Huff, director of the NRS. From 2001 on, the name of the private contractor was changed to Glendale Communications Group, Inc., owned by Sam Huff, and Park Mailing and Fulfillment, Inc., also owned by Sam Huff (view screenshots of the Illinois corporate lookup search results). Most of those years the NRS spent about 10% of its total donations each year on rosacea research. That means that for every dollar donated to the NRS about ten cents is spent on rosacea research. On average for many years around 60% of the donated funds are spent on private contractors owned by the director of the NRS. [2]

      My posts and comments about the NRS for succeeding years are listed in the end notes. [3]

      The other non profit for organization that spends most of its donations on conventions for dermatologists is the AARS

      What do you think a non profit for rosacea should spend its donations on?

      Brady Barrows RRDi Director

      End Notes

      [1] NRS Form 990 for 1998

      [2] NRS Form 990 Spreadsheet 1998 thru the most recent published

      [3] Review of NRS Form 990 for previous years

      My post and comment on how the NRS spent donations in 2013 can be read by clicking here.

      My post and comment on how the NRS spent donations in 2014 can be read by clicking here.

      My post and comment on how the NRS spent donations in 2015 can be read by clicking here.

      My post and comment on how the NRS spent donations in 2016 can be read by clicking here.

       

    • Member Statistics

      • Total Members
        1,289
      • Most Online
        499

      Newest Member
      Petar Bachevski M.D.
      Joined
    • Posts

      • Related Articles Cutaneous pseudolymphoma with rhinophyma-like lesion. J Dermatol. 2019 09;46(9):e335-e337 Authors: Oginezawa M, Kawai K PMID: 30951205 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] {url} = URL to article
      • Related Articles Topical treatments for rosacea. Can Fam Physician. 2019 Nov;65(11):803 Authors: Fritsch P, Kolber MR, Korownyk C PMID: 31722913 [PubMed - in process] {url} = URL to article
      • Related Articles [Rhinophyma, management methods and oncological risk]. Rev Med Liege. 2019 Nov;74(11):606-610 Authors: Bachelet JT, Delafond C, Buchholzer S, Modaressi SA, Nizet C, Termont A Abstract Rhinophyma is the most advanced stage of rosacea (stage IV). It is a benign lesion but aesthetically disabling. We present through a major case of rhinophyma and a review of the literature the diagnostic modalities, the therapeutic alternatives and the risks to be known. Particularly, we detail the risks of oncologic transformation of these poorly known lesions.The management of these rare lesions is based on a collaboration between the surgeon and the dermatologist. PMID: 31729850 [PubMed - in process] {url} = URL to article
      • Related Articles Cutaneous pseudolymphoma with rhinophyma-like lesion. J Dermatol. 2019 09;46(9):e335-e337 Authors: Oginezawa M, Kawai K PMID: 30951205 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] {url} = URL to article
      • Related Articles Topical treatments for rosacea. Can Fam Physician. 2019 Nov;65(11):803 Authors: Fritsch P, Kolber MR, Korownyk C PMID: 31722913 [PubMed - in process] {url} = URL to article
      • Related Articles [Rhinophyma, management methods and oncological risk]. Rev Med Liege. 2019 Nov;74(11):606-610 Authors: Bachelet JT, Delafond C, Buchholzer S, Modaressi SA, Nizet C, Termont A Abstract Rhinophyma is the most advanced stage of rosacea (stage IV). It is a benign lesion but aesthetically disabling. We present through a major case of rhinophyma and a review of the literature the diagnostic modalities, the therapeutic alternatives and the risks to be known. Particularly, we detail the risks of oncologic transformation of these poorly known lesions.The management of these rare lesions is based on a collaboration between the surgeon and the dermatologist. PMID: 31729850 [PubMed - in process] {url} = URL to article
      • Related Articles The Skin and Gut Microbiome and Its Role in Common Dermatologic Conditions. Microorganisms. 2019 Nov 11;7(11): Authors: Ellis SR, Nguyen M, Vaughn AR, Notay M, Burney WA, Sandhu S, Sivamani RK Abstract Microorganisms inhabit various areas of the body, including the gut and skin, and are important in maintaining homeostasis. Changes to the normal microflora due to genetic or environmental factors can contribute to the development of various disease states. In this review, we will discuss the relationship between the gut and skin microbiome and various dermatological diseases including acne, psoriasis, rosacea, and atopic dermatitis. In addition, we will discuss the impact of treatment on the microbiome and the role of probiotics. PMID: 31717915 [PubMed] {url} = URL to article
      • Impact of nanostructured lipid carriers on dapsone delivery to the skin; in vitro and in vivo studies. Int J Pharm. 2019 Nov 09;:118781 Authors: Elmowafy M, Shalaby K, Ali HM, Alruwaili NK, Salama A, Ibrahim MF, Akl MA, Ahmed TA Abstract The main objective of this study was to develop, characterize and evaluate the potential use of dapsone-loaded nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs) as a topical treatment for acne. Differently charged NLC formulations were successfully prepared using an emulsification/sonication method. The particle sizes ranged from 106.2±5.6 nm to 151.3±7.4 nm, and the NLCs possessed the predicted surface charges, depending on the emulsifier used (Tween 80, Transcutol P, or cetyltrimethylammonium bromide). The entrapment efficiencies ranged from 76.5±3.8 % to 91.1±3.9 %. Selected formulations were assessed for possible interactions, in vitro release, ex vivo skin permeation, pharmacological efficacy and safety compared with a hydroalcoholic solution. Dapsone was embedded in the lipid matrix of NLCs and behaved as controlled release system with a good occlusive effect. Dapsone-loaded cationic NLC formulation enhanced the skin permeation of dapsone, increase the amount of dapsone retained in the skin in controlled manner, and improved the anti-rosacea activity. Based on these encouraging results, cationic NLC represents a promising carrier for the safe topical delivery of dapsone. PMID: 31715347 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] {url} = URL to article
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...