Interpace Diagnostics Group (IDXG) Risk Factors

The pharmaceutical, biotechnology and healthcare industries are subject to a high degree of governmental regulation. Significant changes in these regulations affecting our business could result in the imposition of additional restrictions on our business, additional costs to us in providing our tests or services to our customers or otherwise negatively impact our business operations. Changes in governmental regulations mandating price controls and limitations on patient access to our products could also reduce, eliminate or otherwise negatively impact our sales. Additional changes may be forthcoming in light of the current Presidential administration.

Our business activities may be subject to the FCPA and similar anti-bribery or anti-corruption laws, regulations or rules of other countries in which we operate, including the U.K. Bribery Act. The FCPA generally prohibits offering, promising, giving, or authorizing others to give anything of value, either directly or indirectly, to a non-U.S. government official in order to influence official action, or otherwise obtain or retain business. The FCPA also requires public companies to make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect the transactions of the corporation and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. Our business is heavily regulated and therefore involves significant interaction with public officials, potentially including officials of non-U.S. governments. Additionally, in many other countries, the health care providers who prescribe pharmaceuticals are employed by their government, and the purchasers of pharmaceuticals are government entities; therefore, our dealings with these prescribers and purchasers are subject to regulation under the FCPA. Recently, the SEC and Department of Justice have increased their FCPA enforcement activities with respect to pharmaceutical companies. There is no certainty that all of our employees, agents, contractors, or collaborators, or those of our affiliates, will comply with all applicable laws and regulations, particularly given the high level of complexity of these laws. Violations of these laws and regulations could result in fines, criminal sanctions against us, our officers, or our employees, the closing down of our facilities, requirements to obtain export licenses, cessation of business activities in sanctioned countries, implementation of compliance programs, and prohibitions on the conduct of our business. Any such violations could include prohibitions on our ability to offer our products in one or more countries and could materially damage our reputation, our brand, our international expansion efforts, our ability to attract and retain employees, and our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition.

We retain healthcare practitioners as key opinion leaders providing consultation in various aspects of our business, maintain a sales force, and contract for marketing services. These arrangements, like any arrangement that includes compensation to a healthcare provider or potential referral source, may trigger federal or state anti-kickback, Stark Law liability, and False Claims Act liability. There are no guarantees that the federal or state governments will find that these arrangements are designed properly or that they do not trigger liability under federal and state laws. Under existing laws, arrangements generally must be commercially reasonable and often compensation must be fair market value. These terms require some subjective analysis. Safe harbors in the anti-kickback laws do not necessarily equate to exceptions in the Stark Law, and there is no guarantee that the government will agree with our payment practices with respect to the relationships between our laboratory and the healthcare providers, sales force members, or other parties. A failure to comply with Federal and State laws and regulations pertaining to our payment practices could result in substantial penalties and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, federal law prohibits any entity from offering or transferring to a Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary any remuneration that the entity knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary's selection of a particular provider, practitioner or supplier of Medicare or Medicaid payable items or services, including waivers of copayments and deductible amounts (or any part thereof) and transfers of items or services for free or for other than fair market value, unless an exception applies. Entities found in violation may be liable for civil monetary penalties of up to $24,164 for each wrongful act, adjusted for inflation. Further, federal and state anti-kickback statutes or similar laws may be implicated by arrangements with patients to waive, reduce, or limit copays or other payment amounts, such as our Patient Assistance Program. Third-party payers, including commercial payers and government payers, may prohibit, limit, or restrict certain financial arrangements with patients. Violation of these laws or payment policies could result in significant fines, penalties, liability, recoupment, and exclusion from Medicare and Medicaid, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. In 2018, the U.S. enacted the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act, or EKRA, as part of the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act (SUPPORT Act). EKRA is an all-payer anti-kickback law that makes it a criminal offense to, among other things, pay any remuneration to induce referrals to, or in exchange for, an individual using the services of a recovery home, a substance use clinical treatment facility, or laboratory. Although it appears that EKRA was intended to reach patient brokering and similar arrangements to induce patronage of substance use recovery and treatment, the language in EKRA is broadly written. The term "laboratory" is defined broadly and without reference to any connection to substance use disorder treatment. EKRA is a criminal statute and violations can result in fines of up to $200,000, up to 10 years in prison, or both, per violation. As drafted, EKRA does not clearly protect incentive compensation to sales employees, a practice that is common in the industry. A failure to comply with EKRA could result in substantial penalties and other adverse consequences that adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to regulation by both the federal government and the governments of the states in which we conduct our operations. The federal and state laws which may apply to us include, but are not limited to: - The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as supplemented by various other statutes;         - CLIA and state licensing requirements;         - Manufacturing and promotion laws;         - Medicare and Medicaid billing and payment regulations applicable to clinical laboratories;         - The Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018 (EKRA), which, among other things, prohibits the solicitation, receipt, payment or offer of any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe, or rebate) directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, in return for referring a patient or patronage to a recovery home, clinical treatment facility, or laboratory for services covered by both government and private payers;         - The Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (and state equivalents), which, among other things, prohibits knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, in exchange for or to induce either the referral of an individual, or the furnishing, arranging for, or recommending of an item or service that is reimbursable, in whole or in part, by a federal health care program;         - The Federal physician self-referral law, commonly referred to as the "Stark Law," (and state equivalents), which prohibits a physician from making a referral for, and an entity receiving the referral from billing for, certain designated health services covered by the Medicare program, including clinical laboratory services, if the physician or an immediate family member has a financial relationship with the entity providing the designated health services, unless the financial relationship falls within an applicable exception to the prohibition;         - HIPAA, which establishes comprehensive federal standards with respect to the privacy and security of PHI and requirements for the use of certain standardized electronic transactions, and amendments made in 2013 to HIPAA under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, which strengthen and expand HIPAA privacy and security compliance requirements, increase penalties for violators, extend enforcement authority to state attorneys general, and impose requirements for breach notification;- The FTC Act and various state consumer privacy laws, which require regulated entities to take reasonable steps to safeguard the personal information of consumers, make certain disclosures about our data privacy and security practices to the public and certain state or federal regulators, minimize our use of personal information of consumers, and provide consumers with certain rights as to their personal data such as the right to correct or delete their personal information;         - The Federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law, which prohibits, among other things, the offering or transfer of remuneration to a Medicare or state healthcare program beneficiary if the person knows or should know it is likely to influence the beneficiary's selection of a particular provider, practitioner, or supplier of services reimbursable by Medicare or a state healthcare program, unless an exception applies;         - The Federal False Claims Act (and state equivalents), which imposes liability on any person or entity that, among other things, knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment to the federal government;         - The federal transparency requirements under the PPACA, including the provisions commonly referred to as the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, and similar state laws that require certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies that are reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or Children's Health Insurance Program to report annually to CMS information related to certain payments and other transfers of value, directly or indirectly, to physicians (defined to include doctors of medicine, osteopathy, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, anesthesiologist assistants, and certified nurse midwives, and teaching hospitals, and ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members;         - The 21st Century Cures Act information blocking provision prohibiting certain covered actors (including laboratories) from engaging in certain practices that are likely to interfere with the access, exchange, or use of electronic health information;- Other federal and state fraud and abuse laws, prohibitions on self-referral and kickbacks, fee-splitting restrictions, prohibitions on the provision of products at no or discounted cost to induce physician or patient adoption, and false claims acts, transparency, reporting, and disclosure requirements, which may extend to services reimbursable by any third-party payer, including private insurers;- The prohibition on reassignment of Medicare claims, which, subject to certain exceptions, precludes the reassignment of Medicare claims to any other party;         - The Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014, as amended, which requires us to report private payer rates and test volumes for specific CPT codes on a triennial basis and imposes penalties for failures to report, omissions, or misrepresentations;         - The rules regarding billing for diagnostic tests reimbursable by the Medicare program, which among other requirements, prohibit a physician or other supplier from marking up the price of the technical component or professional component of a diagnostic test ordered by the physician or other supplier if the test is performed by a physician who does not "share a practice" with the billing physician or other supplier; and         - State laws that prohibit other specified practices related to billing such as billing physicians for testing that they order, waiving coinsurance, co-payments, deductibles, and other amounts owed by patients, and billing a State Medicaid program at a price that is higher than what is charged to other payers. In recent years U.S. Attorneys' Offices have increased scrutiny of the healthcare industry, as have Congress, the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the Inspector General and the Department of Defense. Many of these bodies have all issued subpoenas and other requests for information to conduct investigations of, and commenced civil or criminal litigation against, healthcare companies based on financial arrangements with health care providers, regulatory compliance, product promotional practices and documentation, and coding and billing practices. Whistleblowers have filed numerous qui tam lawsuits against healthcare companies under the federal and state False Claims Acts in recent years, in part because the whistleblower can receive a portion of the government's recovery under such suits. The growth of our business may increase the potential of violating these laws, regulations or our internal policies and procedures. The risk of our being found in violation of these or other laws and regulations is further increased by the fact that many have not been fully interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts, and their provisions are open to a variety of interpretations. Violations of federal or state regulations may incur investigation or enforcement action by the FDA, Department of Justice, State agencies, or other legal authorities, and may result in substantial civil, criminal, or other sanctions. Any action brought against us for violation of these or other laws or regulations, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management's attention from the operation of our business. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws and regulations, we may be subject to civil and criminal penalties, damages and fines, we could be required to refund payments received by us, we could face possible exclusion from Medicare, Medicaid and other federal or state healthcare programs and we could even be required to cease our operations. Any of the foregoing consequences could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

PPACA made changes that significantly affected the pharmaceutical, medical device and clinical laboratory industries. For example, PPACA includes coordination and promotion of research on comparative clinical effectiveness of different technologies and procedures, initiatives to revise Medicare payment methodologies, such as bundling of payments across the continuum of care by providers and physicians, and initiatives to promote quality indicators in payment methodologies. PPACA also includes significant new fraud and abuse measures, including required disclosures of financial arrangements with physicians, lower thresholds for violations and increasing potential penalties for such violations. The effect of PPACA and any potential changes that may be necessitated by the legislation is uncertain, any of which may potentially affect our business. Our current position is that we do not meet the definition of an "Applicable Manufacturer" under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act of the PPACA and are therefore not subject to the disclosure requirements contained in PPACA. If the government were to reach a different conclusion, our failure to disclose could result in significant monetary penalties and potential claims from certain third parties. PPACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that have been and may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product or service, and could seriously harm our future revenues. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payers. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may compromise our ability to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our products. At the same time, there have been significant ongoing efforts to repeal, revise, or replace PPACA; however, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the surviving portions of the law in 2021. President Biden has used executive orders to undo certain changes to the PPACA made by the Trump administration and has indicated it will advocate for legislation to build on the PPACA. It is unknown what form any such changes or any law would take, and how or whether it may affect our business in the future. We expect that changes or additions to the PPACA, the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and changes stemming from other healthcare reform measures, especially with regard to healthcare access, financing or other legislation in individual states, could have a material adverse effect on the healthcare industry. For example, Medicare payment rates have been – and in the future, will continue to be, to varying extents, subject to sequestration. Reductions resulting from the Congressional sequester are applied to total claim payments made; however, they do not currently result in a rebasing of the negotiated or established Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement rates. State legislation on reimbursement applies to Medicaid reimbursement and Managed Medicaid reimbursement rates within that state. Some states have passed or proposed legislation that would revise reimbursement methodology for clinical laboratory payment rates under those Medicaid programs. In April 2014, President Obama signed the Protecting Access to Medicare Act, or PAMA, which included a substantial new payment system for clinical laboratory tests under the CLFS. Under PAMA, CLFS payment rates are based upon the weighted median of private payor rates for each type of laboratory test. To calculate these rates, PAMA requires CLIA-certified laboratories that receive a majority of their Medicare revenue from payments made under the CLFS and the Physician Fee Schedule, and receive at least $12,500 in CLFS revenue, within the 6-month reporting period, to report private payor rates and volumes for their tests with specific CPT codes based on final payments made during a 6-month period of data collection (from January 1 through June 30 of the applicable year). For most laboratory tests, the CLFS is updated every three years, but rates are updated annually for Advanced Diagnostic Laboratory Tests, or ADLTs. The first private payor rate-based CLFS was based on data collected from January 1 through June 30, 2016, and became effective on January 1, 2018. CMS published final rules implementing these changes in 2016 and 2018. Under the revised Medicare Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule, reimbursement for clinical laboratory testing was reduced for most tests in 2018, 2019, and 2020. PAMA (as revised) calls for further revisions of the Medicare Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule for years after 2024, based on surveys of market rates. Further reductions in reimbursement may result from such revisions. PAMA, as amended by the Protecting Medicare and American Farmers from Sequester Cuts Act, among other laws, revised payment reductions and the data reporting schedule for CDLTs that are not ADLTs. Under these laws, the next data reporting period is January 1, 2025 through March 31, 2025, and will be based upon the data collected during the January 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019 period. Any reductions to payment rates resulting from the new methodology are limited to 10% per test per year in each of the years 2018 through 2020 and to 15% per test per year in each of the years 2025 through 2027. Payments will not be reduced for 2021 through 2024 for CDLTs. We cannot predict whether future healthcare initiatives will be implemented at the federal or state level or in countries outside of the United States in which we may do business, or the effect any future legislation or regulation will have on us. There is additional uncertainty in light of the current Presidential administration. The taxes imposed by federal legislation, cost reduction measures and the expansion in the role of the U.S. government in the healthcare industry may result in decreased revenue, lower reimbursement by payers for our tests or reduced medical procedure volumes, all of which may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to CLIA regulations, a Federal law that regulates clinical laboratories that perform testing on specimens derived from humans for the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of any disease, or impairment of, or the assessment of the health of, human beings. CLIA regulations mandate specific personnel qualifications, facilities administration, quality systems, inspections and proficiency testing. CLIA certification is also required in order for us to be eligible to bill federal and state healthcare programs, as well as many private third-party payers, for our molecular diagnostic tests. To renew these certifications, we are subject to survey and inspection every two years. Moreover, CLIA inspectors may make random inspections of our clinical reference laboratory. We are also required to maintain State licenses to conduct testing in our Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania laboratory. Pennsylvania law requires that we maintain a license and establish standards for the day-to-day operation of our clinical reference laboratory in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In addition, our Pittsburgh laboratory is required to be licensed by certain states, including California, Maryland, New York and Rhode Island. New York law requires us to obtain test-specific approval before offering our tests as LDT. California, Maryland, New York and Rhode Island laws also mandate proficiency testing for laboratories licensed under the laws of each respective State regardless of whether such laboratories are located in California, Maryland, New York or Rhode Island. If we were unable to obtain or maintain our CLIA certificate for our laboratory, whether as a result of revocation, suspension or limitation, we would no longer be able to perform our current clinical services, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. If we were to lose our licenses issued by States where we are required to hold licenses, if such licenses expired or were not renewed, or if we failed to obtain and maintain a State license that we are required to hold, we may be subject to significant fines, penalties and liability, and may be forced to cease testing (if Pennsylvania) or cease testing specimens from those States (if California, New York, Maryland, or Rhode Island), which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. New molecular diagnostic tests we may develop may be subject to new requirements by governmental bodies, including state governments, and we may not be able to offer our new molecular diagnostic tests in such jurisdictions until such requirements are met.

As a public company, we are incurring significant legal, accounting and other expenses. In addition to being required to comply with certain requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the Sarbanes-Oxley Act), we are required to comply with certain requirements of the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, as well as rules and regulations subsequently implemented by the SEC, including the establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and changes in corporate governance practices. We expect that compliance with these requirements will continue to increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time consuming and costly. In addition, we expect that our management and other personnel will continue to need to divert attention from operational and other business matters to devote substantial time to these public company requirements. For example, in 2020, our Audit Committee conducted an independent investigation in accordance with Section 10A of the Exchange Act into complaints of certain employment and billing and compliance matters and concluded that the allegations made in the complaints were unsubstantiated and that there was no evidence of any illegal acts. The completion of the investigation caused us to be late in filing our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2020. We also spent considerable management time in connection with our restatement of previously issued financial statements contained in our Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2014 through 2019 as well as the financial statements contained in the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for each quarterly period within those fiscal years as well as the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2020 and June 30, 2020. This was due to evaluating and recording an impairment charge and amortization expense relating to our BarreGen asset, as disclosed in Item 9A of our Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year 2021. Further, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. In particular, we must perform system and process evaluation and testing of our internal control over financial reporting to allow management to report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In addition, if we lose our status as a "smaller reporting company," we will be required to have our independent registered public accounting firm attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Our compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as applicable, requires us to incur substantial accounting expense and expend significant management efforts. We currently do not have an internal audit group, and we will need to continue to hire additional accounting and financial staff with appropriate public company experience and technical accounting knowledge. If we or our independent registered public accounting firm identify deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses, such as the material weakness described in Item 9A of this report, the market price of our stock could decline and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities, which would require additional financial and management resources.

We are subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in or outside the ordinary course of business. The results of legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty. Regardless of merit, litigation may be both time-consuming and disruptive to our operations and cause significant expense and diversion of management attention. If we do not prevail in the legal proceedings, we may be faced with significant monetary damages or injunctive relief against us that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our certificate of incorporation, as amended, contains provisions permitting us to enter into indemnification agreements with our directors, officers, and employees. The foregoing indemnification obligations could result in us incurring substantial expenditures to cover the cost of settlement or damage awards against directors and officers, which we may be unable to recoup. These provisions and resultant costs may also discourage us from bringing a lawsuit against our directors and officers for breaches of their fiduciary duties and may similarly discourage the filing of derivative litigation by our stockholders against our directors and officers even though such actions, if successful, might otherwise benefit us and our stockholders.

Some patients may decide not to use our clinical services tests due to price, all or part of which may be payable directly by the patient if the patient's insurer denies reimbursement in full or in part. Many insurers seek to shift more of the cost of healthcare to patients in the form of higher deductibles, co-payments, or premiums. In addition, the economic environment in the United States may result in the loss of healthcare coverage. Implementation of provisions of PPACA provided coverage for many patients, particularly in the individual market, who were previously either uninsured or faced high premiums. However, premiums for many of the plans participating in the exchanges established as part of this legislation have increased and some health plans have chosen to drop out of these networks in specific markets or the program altogether. In 2018, Congress passed legislation revising certain provisions of PPACA and federal agencies also have issued final rules to repeal or revise regulations governing the implementation of certain provisions of PPACA which may negatively impact our revenues. Overall, the scope and timing of any further legislation, judicial action or federal regulations to limit, revise, or replace PPACA or regulations governing its implementation is uncertain, but if enacted could have a significant impact on the U.S. healthcare system and our revenues. These events may result in an increase of uninsured patients, increases in premiums, and reductions in coverage for some patients. Patients may therefore delay or forego medical checkups or treatment due to their inability to pay for our clinical services tests, which could have a negative effect on our revenues. We do have a Patient Assistance Program that allows eligible patients to apply for assistance in covering a portion of their out of pocket obligation or all costs for claims denied as non-covered for our clinical services tests if they meet the criteria for participation.

In the past, we have entered into clinical study collaborations related to our tests and services, and our success in the future depends in part on our ability to enter into additional collaborations with highly regarded institutions. This can be difficult due to internal and external constraints placed on these organizations. Some organizations may limit the number of collaborations they have with any one company so as to not be perceived as biased or conflicted. Organizations may also have insufficient administrative and related infrastructure to enable collaboration with many companies at once, which can extend the time it takes to develop, negotiate and implement a collaboration. Moreover, it may take longer to obtain the samples we need which could delay our trials, publications, and product launches and reimbursement. Additionally, organizations often insist on retaining the rights to publish the clinical data resulting from the collaboration. The publication of clinical data in peer-reviewed journals is a crucial step in commercializing and obtaining reimbursement for our diagnostic tests, and our inability to control when and if results are published may delay or limit our ability to derive sufficient revenue from them.

Recently, there have been numerous advances in technologies relating to diagnostics, particularly diagnostics that are based on genomic information. These advances require us to continuously develop our technology and to work to develop new solutions to keep pace with evolving standards of care. Our services could become obsolete unless we continually innovate and expand our product offerings to include new clinical applications. If we are unable to develop or acquire new tests, services and solutions or to demonstrate the applicability of our tests and services for other diseases, our sales could decline and our competitive position could be harmed.

Developing new tests, services and solutions will require us to devote considerable resources to research and development, which we may not be in a position to do. We may face challenges obtaining sufficient numbers of samples to validate a newly acquired or developed test or service. In order to develop and commercialize new tests and services, we need to: - expend significant funds to conduct substantial research and development;         - conduct successful analytical and clinical studies;         - scale our laboratory processes to accommodate new tests and services; and         - build and maintain the commercial infrastructure to market and sell new tests and services. Typically, few research and development projects result in commercial products, and success in early clinical studies often is not replicated in later studies. At any point, we may abandon development of a test, service or solutions or we may be required to expend considerable resources repeating clinical studies, which would adversely affect the timing for generating revenue from such test, service or solution. If a clinical validation study fails to demonstrate the prospectively defined endpoints of the study or if we fail to sufficiently demonstrate analytical validity, we might choose to abandon the development of the test, service or solution which could harm our business. In addition, competitors may develop and commercialize new competing tests, services and solutions faster than us or at a lower cost, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may receive notices of claims of direct or indirect infringement or misappropriation or misuse of other parties' proprietary rights from time to time and some of these claims may lead to litigation. We cannot assume that we will prevail in such actions, or that other actions alleging misappropriation or misuse by us of third-party trade secrets, infringement by us of third-party patents and trademarks or other rights, or the validity of our patents, trademarks or other rights, will not be asserted or prosecuted against us. We might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by each of our pending patent applications and we might not have been the first to file patent applications for these inventions. No assurance can be given that other patent applications will not have priority over our patent applications. If third parties bring these proceedings against our patents, we could incur significant costs and experience management distraction. Litigation may be necessary for us to enforce our patents and proprietary rights or to determine the scope, coverage and validity of the proprietary rights of others. Defending any litigation, and particularly patent litigation, is expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome of any litigation or other proceeding is inherently uncertain and might not be favorable to us. It is also possible that we might not be able to obtain licenses to technology that we require on acceptable terms or at all. In addition, if we resort to legal proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights or to determine the validity, scope and coverage of the intellectual property or other proprietary rights of others, the proceedings could be burdensome and expensive, even if we were to prevail. Any litigation that may be necessary in the future could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may be required to pay damages and ongoing royalties, and obtain one or more licenses from third parties, or be prohibited from selling our products. We may not be able to obtain these licenses on acceptable terms, if at all. We could incur substantial costs related to royalty payments for licenses obtained from third parties, which could negatively affect our financial results. In addition, our agreements with some of our customers, suppliers or other entities with whom we do business require us to defend or indemnify these parties to the extent they become involved in infringement claims, including the types of claims described above. If we are required or agree to defend or indemnify third parties in connection with any infringement claims, we could incur significant costs and expenses that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

As is the case with other companies operating in our industry, our success is somewhat dependent on intellectual property, particularly on obtaining and enforcing patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents of molecular diagnostics tests, like our molecular diagnostic tests in our PancraGEN and miRInform platforms (including ThyGeNEXT), involves both technological and legal complexity, and is therefore costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. From time-to-time the U.S. Supreme Court, other Federal courts, the U.S. Congress or the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO, may change the standards of patentability and any such changes could have a negative impact on our business. For instance, on October 30, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision that methods or processes cannot be patented unless they are tied to a machine or involve a physical transformation. The U.S. Supreme Court later reversed that decision in Bilski v. Kappos, finding that the "machine-or-transformation" test is not the only test for determining patent eligibility. The Court, however, declined to specify how and when processes are patentable. On March 30, 2012, in the case Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit's application of Bilski and invalidated a patent focused on a process for identifying a proper dosage for an existing therapeutic because the patent claim embodied a law of nature. On July 3, 2012, the USPTO released a memorandum entitled "2012 Interim Procedure for Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis of Process Claims Involving Laws of Nature," with guidelines for determining patentability of diagnostic or other processes in line with the Mayo decision. On June 13, 2013, in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, the Supreme Court held that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated. The Supreme Court did not address the patentability of any innovative method claims involving the manipulation of isolated genes. On March 4, 2014, the USPTO released a memorandum entitled "2014 Procedure for Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws Of Nature/Natural Principles, Natural Phenomena, And/Or Natural Products." This memorandum provides guidelines for the USPTO's new examination procedure for subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claims embracing natural products or natural principles. On June 12, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Ariosa v. Sequenom holding that a method for detecting a paternally inherited nucleic acid of fetal origin performed on a maternal serum or plasma sample from a pregnant female were unpatentable as directed to a naturally occurring phenomenon. On July 30, 2015, the USPTO released a Federal Register Notice entitled, "July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility," This Notice updated the USPTO guidelines for the USPTO's procedure for subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claims embracing natural products or natural principles phenomenon. On May 4, 2016, the USPTO released life science examples that were intended to be used in conjunction with the USPTO guidance on subject matter eligibility. Although the guidelines and examples do not have the force of law, patent examiners have been instructed to follow them. On February 6, 2019, the Federal Circuit for Court of Appeals issued a decision in Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC, which relied on the decisions from Mayo and Ariosa, to find a claim directed to a method for diagnosing neurotransmission or developmental disorders related to muscle specific tyrosine kinase not eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. What constitutes a law of nature and a sufficient inventive concept continues to remain uncertain, and it is possible that certain aspects of diagnostic tests will continue to be considered natural laws and, therefore, ineligible for patent protection. Some aspects of our technology involve processes that may be subject to this evolving standard and we cannot guarantee that any of our pending or issued claims will be patentable or upheld as valid as a result of such evolving standards. In addition, patents we own or license that issued before these recent cases may be subject to challenge in court or before the USPTO in view of these current legal standards. Accordingly, the evolving interpretation and application of patent laws in the United States governing the eligibility of diagnostics for patent protection may adversely affect our ability to obtain patents and may facilitate third-party challenges to any owned and licensed patents. Changes in either the patent laws or in interpretations and application of patent laws may also diminish the value of our existing intellectual property or intellectual property that we continue to develop. We cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforceable in our patents or in third-party patents.

If we are unable to create or maintain sufficient demand for our clinical services tests or if we are unable to expand our product offerings, we may not maintain profitability. To generate demand, we will need to continue to educate physicians and the medical community on the value and benefits of our clinical services tests in order to change clinical practices through clinical trials, published papers, presentations at scientific conferences and one-on-one education by our commercial sales force, which are costly and time-consuming. In addition, our ability to obtain and maintain adequate reimbursement from third-party payers for our clinical services tests will be critical to generating revenue. In many cases, practice guidelines in the United States have recommended therapies or surgery to determine if a patient's condition is malignant or benign. Accordingly, physicians may be reluctant to order a diagnostic test that may suggest surgery is unnecessary. In addition, our assays are performed at our laboratory rather than by a pathologist in a local laboratory, so pathologists may be reluctant to support our tests. Moreover, guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of thyroid nodules may change to recommend another type of treatment protocol, and these changes may result in medical practitioners deciding not to use our molecular diagnostic tests. These facts may make physicians reluctant to use our assays, which could limit our ability to generate revenue from our clinical services tests and achieve profitability, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Physicians may generally not order our clinical services tests unless payers reimburse a substantial portion of the test price. There is uncertainty concerning third-party reimbursement of any test incorporating new molecular diagnostic technology. Reimbursement by a payer may depend on a number of factors, including a payer's determination that tests such as our molecular diagnostic tests are: (a) not experimental or investigational; (b) pre-authorized and appropriate for the patient; (c) cost-effective; (d) supported by peer-reviewed publications; and (e) included in clinical practice guidelines. Since each payer generally makes its own decision as to whether to establish a policy or enter into a contract to reimburse our clinical services tests, seeking these approvals is a time-consuming and costly process. Although we have contracted rates of reimbursement with certain payers, which establishes allowable rates of reimbursement for our PancraGEN, ThyGeNEXT, ThyraMIRv2 and RespriDx assays, payers may suspend or discontinue reimbursement at any time, may require or increase co-payments from patients, may impose pre-authorization requirements or may reduce the reimbursement rates paid to us. Any such actions could have a negative effect on our revenue for our clinical services tests. We have contracted rates of reimbursement with select payers for PancraGEN, ThyGeNEXT and ThyraMIRv2 and to a limited extent, RespriDx. Without a contracted rate for reimbursement, claims may be denied upon submission, and we may need to appeal the claims. The appeals process is time consuming and expensive, and may not result in payment. We expect to continue to focus resources on increasing adoption of and coverage and reimbursement for our molecular diagnostic tests. We cannot, however, predict whether, under what circumstances, or at what payment levels payers will reimburse us for our molecular diagnostic tests, if at all. In addition to our current commercial products on the market and in our pipeline, the launch of any new molecular diagnostic tests in the future may require that we expend substantial time and resources in order to obtain and retain reimbursement. Also, payer consolidation can create uncertainty as to whether coverage and contracts with existing payers will even remain in effect. Finally, commercial payers may tie their allowable rates to Medicare rates, and should Medicare reduce their rates, we may be negatively impacted. If we fail to establish broad adoption of and reimbursement for our assays, or if we are unable to maintain existing reimbursement from payers, our ability to generate revenue for our clinical services tests could be harmed and this could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Billing for clinical services is complex, time consuming and expensive. Depending on the billing arrangement and applicable law, we bill various payers, including Medicare, insurance companies and patients, all of which have different billing requirements. To the extent laws or contracts require us to bill patient co-payments or co-insurance; we must also comply with these requirements. We may also face increased risk in our collection efforts, including write-offs of doubtful accounts and long collection cycles, which could have a material adverse effect on our clinical services, results of operations and financial condition. Among others, the following factors make the billing process complex: - differences between the list price for our molecular diagnostic tests and the reimbursement rates of payers;         - compliance with complex federal and state regulations related to billing Medicare;         - changes in billing policy reimbursement by CMS;         - disputes among payers as to which party is responsible for payment;         - differences in coverage among payers and the effect of patient co-payments or co-insurance;         - differences in information and billing requirements among payers;         - incorrect or missing billing information;         - the resources required to manage the billing and claims appeals process including those of our billing service providers;- our inability to bill timely and accurate requisitions and process denials efficiently may result in delayed collections and reduced reimbursement rates; and         - the overall performance and effectiveness of our billing service providers. As we grow and introduce new clinical services tests and other services, we will likely need to add new codes to our billing process as well as our financial reporting systems. Failure or delays in effecting these changes in external billing and internal systems and processes could negatively affect our revenue and cash flow from our clinical services. Additionally, our billing activities require us to implement compliance procedures and oversight, train and monitor our employees or contractors, challenge coverage and payment denials, assist patients in appealing claims, and undertake internal audits to evaluate compliance with applicable laws and regulations as well as internal compliance policies and procedures. Payers also conduct external audits to evaluate payments, which add further complexity to the billing process. These billing complexities, and the related uncertainty in obtaining payment for our diagnostic solutions, could negatively affect our revenue and cash flow, our ability to achieve profitability, and the consistency and comparability of our results of operations.

Our revenues are substantially dependent on third-party reimbursement. We are paid directly by private insurers and governmental agencies, often on a fixed fee basis. If the average fees allowable by private insurers or governmental agencies were reduced, the negative impact on revenues could have a material effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Also, if amounts owed to us by payors are reduced or not paid on a timely basis, we may be required to increase our concessions and/or decrease our revenues. Changes to the health care reimbursement system that favor other technologies or treatment regimens and reduce our reimbursements may adversely affect our ability to market our services profitably. Overall, such dependency and potential changes could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

All of our revenue is derived from our clinical services business. We have molecular diagnostics tests and complimentary service extensions that are in development, but there can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully commercialize or sufficiently increase revenues from those tests. If we are unable to increase sales of our molecular diagnostic tests, expand reimbursement for these tests, or successfully develop and commercialize other molecular diagnostic tests, our revenue and our ability to achieve and sustain profitability would be impaired, and this could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, and the market price of our common stock could decline.

Revenue for clinical services tests performed on patients covered by Medicare was approximately 51% of our revenue for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023. The percentage of our revenue derived from significant payers for our clinical services tests is expected to fluctuate from period to period as our revenue increases, as additional payers provide reimbursement for such tests, and in the event that one or more payers were to stop reimbursing for our clinical services tests or change their reimbursement amounts. In January 2022, the Company announced that CMS issued a new billing policy whereby CMS will no longer reimburse for the use of the Company's ThyGeNEXT and ThyraMIRv2 tests when billed together by the same provider/supplier for the same beneficiary on the same date of service. On February 28, 2022, the Company announced that the National Correct Coding Initiative (NCCI) program issued a response on behalf of CMS stating that the January 2022 billing policy reimbursement change for ThyGeNEXT (0245U) and ThyraMIRv2 (0018U) tests has been retroactively reversed to January 1, 2022. CMS was reimbursing the Company for one of its two thyroid tests, and had agreed to retroactively reimburse for the second test once they had completed their internal administrative adjustments. We were notified by CMS/NCCI that processing of claims for dates of service after January 1, 2022 would be completed beginning July 1, 2022. As of the date of this filing the Company has no remaining outstanding collections regarding this matter and is fully up to date with CMS. Effective January 1, 2023, the gapfill price for ThyGeNEXT was set at $1,266.07. Novitas has been and is the current regional MAC that handles claims processing for Medicare services with jurisdiction for PancraGEN, ThyGeNEXT, ThyraMIRv2, and RespriDx. On a five-year rotational basis, Medicare requests bids for its regional MAC services. Any future changes in the MAC processing or coding for Medicare claims for our molecular diagnostic tests could result in a change in the coverage or reimbursement rates for such molecular diagnostic tests, or the loss of coverage. Further, along with many laboratories, we may be affected by the Proposed LCD DL39365, which is currently under consideration by our local Medicare Administrative Contractor, Novitas. If finalized, this Proposed LCD, which governs "Genetic Testing for Oncology," could impact the existing Medicare coverage for one of our molecular tests, PancraGEN. On June 5, 2023 we announced that Novitas issued the final LCD of Genetic Testing for Oncology (L39365) which, if finalized, would have established non-coverage for the Company's widely used PancraGEN test effective July 17, 2023. On July 6, 2023, Novitas announced that it would not be implementing the final Genetic Testing for Oncology LCD (L39365) as scheduled on July 17, 2023. Novitas then issued a new virtually identical proposed LCD affecting the same companies and tests and reaching the same conclusions as noted in the previously rescinded LCD on July 27, 2023. In response, the Company participated in a public meeting presentation and submitted detailed written comments supporting the use of PancraGEN. The timing and content of any final implemented LCD is uncertain at this time; the process could potentially take a year or longer from issuance of the updated proposed LCD to reach a conclusion. As a result, we are able to continue offering PancraGEN and the related Point2 fluid chemistry tests for amylase, CEA, and glucose. In the event Novitas ultimately restricts coverage for the PancraGEN test, the Company's liquidity could be negatively impacted. Our PancraGEN, ThyraMIRv2 and ThyGeNEXT tests are reimbursed by Medicare based on applicable CPT codes. RespriDx is currently only covered by the Medicare Advantage program and our BarreGEN assay is not reimbursed at all. Any future reductions from the current reimbursement rates for our clinical services tests would have a material adverse effect on business and results of operations. Although we have entered into contracts with certain third-party payers which establish allowable rates of reimbursement for our clinical services tests, payers may suspend or discontinue reimbursement at any time, may require or increase co-payments from patients, or may reduce the reimbursement rates paid to us. Any such actions could have a negative effect on our revenue for our clinical services tests.

If our sales force is not successful, or new additions to our sales team fail to gain traction among our customers, we may not be able to increase market awareness and sales of our molecular diagnostic tests. If we fail to establish our clinical services tests in the marketplace, it could have a negative effect on our ability to sell subsequent products or services and hinder the desired expansion of our business. We have growing, however limited, historical experience forecasting the direct sales of our clinical services products. Our ability to produce product quantities that meet customer demand is dependent upon our ability to forecast accurately and plan production accordingly.