Balwani’s lawyers opted not to have their client testify in his own defense and called only two witnesses, while Holmes’ defense team offered jurors the opportunity to hear her testimony
Elizabeth Holmes and Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani dreamed of revolutionizing the clinical laboratory blood-testing industry with their now defunct Theranos Edison device, which they claimed could perform multiple tests with a single finger prick of blood. Instead, they became the rare Silicon Valley executives to be convicted of fraud.
On July 7, ex-COO/President Balwani was convicted on all 12 counts of wire fraud and conspiracy charges in his federal fraud trial. Holmes, Theranos’ founder/CEO and former romantic partner to Balwani, avoided convictions six months ago in January on seven of the 11 counts she faced for her role in exaggerating the accuracy and reliability of the company’s Edison blood-testing device and providing false financial claims to investors.
“Once again, a jury has determined that the fraud at Theranos reached the level of criminal conspiracy,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Sean Ragan in a press release posted on Twitter following the verdict. “The FBI has spent years investigating this investment fraud scheme with our partners at USPIS and the FDA Office of Criminal Investigations. Lies, deceit, and criminal actions cannot replace innovation and success.”
Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani (above center), former COO/President of Theranos, is shown leaving the federal courthouse in San Jose, Calif., on July 7 after he was found guilty on all 12 counts of fraud, a verdict more severe than ex-CEO and Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes received in January for similar charges. Clinical laboratory directors and medical laboratory scientists have been closely monitoring both trails. (Photo copyright: Jim Wilson/The New York Times.)
Balwani’s Age and Experience May Have Worked Against Him
Michael Weinstein, JD, a former Justice Department prosecutor who is the Chair of White-collar Litigation at Cole Schotz, told The New York Times that Balwani’s age and his trial date—three months after Holmes’ conviction—worked against him. Balwani, 57, could not present himself as a young and inexperienced tech executive easily manipulated by those around him, as Holmes, 38, had attempted to do.
“Holmes could come off as a bit naïve, and [her defense team] tried to sell that,” Weinstein said of the former Stanford University dropout who founded Theranos in 2003 when she was 19.
In Holmes’ case the verdict was mixed, with jurors acquitting her of the patient fraud counts but unable to reach a decision on some of the investor fraud counts, Bloomberg reported.
Mr. Balwani, however, “came off as more of an experienced technology executive,” Weinstein added.
Weinstein pointed out that because the government’s case against Balwani mirrored its case against Holmes, prosecutors had time to refine their strategy before making a second appearance inside US District Court Judge Edward Davila’s San Jose courtroom.
“The streamlined presentation, the streamlined evidence, the streamlined narrative—all was beneficial for the government in the end,” he said.
Ever since opening arguments in March, Balwani’s legal team portrayed him to the jurors as a loyal partner who believed in Theranos’ technology and “put his money where his mouth is,” the Guardian noted.
Prosecutors, however, made the case that Balwani had a hands-on role in running the lab and was the source of Theranos’ overinflated financial projections.
Balwani invested about $15 million in the startup between 2009 and 2011 and never cashed in when his stake grew to $500 million. That money evaporated when Theranos collapsed.
In all, 24 witnesses testified against Balwani. He was ultimately convicted of all 12 counts he faced:
Two counts of conspiring with Holmes,
Six counts of defrauding investors, and
Four counts of patient fraud.
Major Differences in Trial Testimony
The Balwani trial made headlines due to COVID-19 pandemic related delays, but otherwise did not produce the news-generating moments that punctuated Holmes’ nearly four-month-long court appearance. Thirty-two witnesses appeared at the Holmes trial, including Secretary of Defense James Mattis, according to CNN.
Another significant difference in the two trials was that Holmes testified in her own defense. Holmes spent nearly 24 hours on the stand, CNN Business noted at that time, during which she cast the blame for Theranos’ failings on those around her, including Balwani.
ABC NewsRebecca Jarvis, host and creator of the podcast “The Dropout,” believes Balwani’s decision not to testify worked against him.
“[The abuse claims] did not come up at his trial, but during [Holmes’] seven days of testimony, they were a big portion of what she talked about,” Jarvis said in an ABC News “Start Here” podcast. “The biggest difference is that he didn’t take the stand to say, ‘I didn’t do this,’ or … raise his own objections to the claims against him.
“You think about a jury who is supposed to know nothing about any of [the defendant’s] backstory, and they’re shown these things like … case pictures of [Holmes] so much younger than [Balwani], supposedly having to rely on him for his expertise,” Jarvis added.
“You can imagine where the jury may have found that presentation more sympathetic than Sunny Balwani who had experience,” she said.
Text May Have Been Balwani’s Undoing
Balwani’s defense team called only two witnesses:
A naturopathic physician who used Theranos’ blood-testing lab, and
A technical consultant who Balwani’s legal team hired to assess the accessibility of patient data in Theranos’ Laboratory Information System (LIS), which the defense argued could have provided evidence of the accuracy of Theranos’ test results.
“This verdict also signals the jurors did not buy Balwani’s highly speculative argument that the database Theranos lost in 2018 would have proven his innocence,” Park said.
“We are obviously disappointed with the verdicts,” he said. “We plan to study and consider all of Mr. Balwani’s options including an appeal.”
Following the verdicts, Judge Davila raised Balwani’s bail to $750,000 and set a Nov. 15 sentencing date. Holmes is scheduled to be sentenced Sept. 26.
Balwani’s own words may have been his final undoing. During closing arguments, prosecutors again showed jurors a text message Balwani sent to Holmes in 2015, The New York Times reported.
“I am responsible for everything at Theranos,” he wrote. “All have been my decisions too.”
Clinical laboratory directors and medical laboratory scientists will no doubt continue to monitor the fallout from these two extraordinary federal fraud trials. There’s still much to learn about CLIA-laboratory director responsibility and how the government plans to prevent future lab testing fraud from taking place.
Clinical laboratory managers and pathology group leaders may want to pay closer attention to shrinking hospital margins and whether this may put pressure on hospital laboratory budgets
Financial performance of the nation’s hospitals and health systems continues to disappoint hospital leaders. For the fourth consecutive month this year, hospital operating margins have remained in the red. This will, of course, affect the clinical laboratories and pathology departments at these institutions.
A recently released National Hospital Flash Report from healthcare management consulting firm Kaufman Hall indicates that 2022 has started off poorly for most healthcare organizations. The information in Kaufman’s report is based on data gathered from more than 900 hospitals and healthcare systems across the country.
The key takeaways outlined in the report for the month of April that are negatively affecting hospitals’ bottom lines include:
More patients are utilizing urgent care facilities, telemedicine options, and primary care providers instead of seeking care at hospital emergency departments.
Patients tend to be sicker, more expensive to treat, and require longer hospital stays compared to April of 2021.
Expenses remain high due to labor shortages, specialty supplies, supply chain issues, and costly pharmaceuticals.
“Labor shortages, high prices for supplies, and cost increases to treat sicker patients over longer stays are ballooning hospital expenses,” Erik Swanson (above), Senior Vice President of Data and Analytics for Kaufman Hall, told Fierce Healthcare. “With a bleak consensus outlook for the US economy, those factors and their effects could be here for a while.” Clinical laboratories have been grappling with supply and personnel shortages and rising costs for many years. (Photo copyright: Kaufman Hall.)
According to the report, the operating margins for the hospitals were down nearly 40% compared to March 2022 and declined 76% when compared to April 2021. The calculated median operating margin index was -3.09% throughout April 2022. In addition, operating earnings declined almost 27% from March to April of this year and 51.5% when contrasted with April of last year.
The report also found that patient volumes, average lengths of stays, and surgeries performed had declined overall during the month of April—but that hospital expenses rose during that period—thus decreasing profit margins. Total expenditures increased by 8.3% over April 2021, and 9.6% between March and April of this year.
Inflation, COVID-19 Key Factors in Hospitals’ First Quarter Losses
The report noted that the historic rise in inflation during the month of April is fueling negative revenues for healthcare systems and hospitals. Several for-profit and nonprofit hospital systems reported losses for the first quarter of 2022.
Kaufman’s report for the month of March was slightly more positive as the healthcare organizations surveyed reported an incremental rise in patient volumes and minor expense relief, resulting in gains in volumes and revenues. March also saw an increase in outpatient and surgery volumes and lower numbers of high-acuity patients. However, that slight upward trend did not last through April.
Another reason for the year-to-date unsatisfactory revenue margins for hospitals across the country was the surge of patients seeking care for the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant of the COVID-19 infection earlier in the year.
“The first few months of this year were decimated by the impact of the omicron wave, but as the omicron wave subsided, we had a bit of a rebound in those volumes, and that’s what you saw in March,” Erik Swanson, Senior Vice President of Data and Analytics for Kaufman Hall told HealthLeaders. “However, it wasn’t a rebound to the full historical volumes, and that is again because of that wave.”
Healthcare Organizations are Advised to Look at Expenses
The National Hospital Flash Report is published monthly by Kaufman Hall and provides vital analyses and observations on the fiscal performance of hospitals and healthcare systems. The information contained in the report includes data on margins, volumes, revenues, and expenses.
“The revenue side is a bit more challenging for organizations to control. Many are looking at their internal revenue cycle, understanding where there can be improvements in their own process, improving just the performance of the revenue cycle that improves the collections rates,” Swanson said. “Many are also trying to renegotiate with payers and negotiate perhaps as aggressively as possible to get the best rates. But I think where you see much of the levers that organizations can pull is on the expense side.”
Fluctuations in revenue mean that organizations—including clinical laboratories—will have to establish new strategies to diminish their financial shortfalls.
“Finally, because a lot of these challenges are due to these ebbs and flows in volumes, many organizations are also looking to see how they can embrace more data-driven predictive type models to look at volumes and think about how they can optimize their workforce to better handle these ebbs and flows of volume,” Swanson added. “This very often includes thinking about the appropriate size of float pools, the number of times that you need to pay overtime versus hiring new individuals, so many organizations are taking those approaches to bend the cost curve. There are quite a few levers that organizations are pulling to bend this cost curve down to ultimately improve their margins overall.”
The most recent report concluded that the first four months of 2022 have been extremely challenging for hospitals and health systems with extended negative margins taking their toll. The report also projected that the overall picture does not look favorable for these organizations for the remainder of the year and that many healthcare facilities may finish out 2022 with substantially depressed margins.
Clinical laboratory managers and pathology group leaders serving hospital and integrated delivery networks (IDNs) may want to consider how these depressed hospital margins will affect their own laboratories. It may be timely to anticipate how this fall’s budget-planning cycle might require their labs to specify how costs can be cut in the coming budget year.
Factors contributing to shortage of med techs and other lab scientists include limited training programs in clinical laboratory science, pay disparity, and staff retention, notes infectious disease specialist Judy Stone, MD
Staff shortages are a growing challenge for medical laboratories, and now the problem has grabbed the attention of a major media outlet.
In a story she penned for Forbes, titled, “We’re Facing a Critical Shortage of Medical Laboratory Professionals,” senior contributor and infectious disease specialist Judy Stone, MD, wrote, “Behind the scenes at every hospital are indispensable medical laboratory professionals. They performed an estimated 13 billion laboratory tests in the United States each year before COVID. Since the pandemic began, they have also conducted almost 997 million diagnostic tests for COVID-19. The accuracy and timeliness of lab tests are critically important, as they shape approximately two-thirds of all medical decisions made by physicians.”
Though Stone states in her Forbes article that clinical laboratories in both the US and Canada are facing staff shortages, she notes that the problem is more acute in the US.
As Dark Daily reported in February, the so-called “Great Resignation” caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has had a severe impact on clinical laboratory staffs, creating shortages of pathologists as well as of medical technologists, medical laboratory technicians, and other lab scientists who are vital to the nation’s network of clinical laboratories.
In her analysis, however, Stone accurately observes that the problem pre-dates the pandemic. For examples she cites two surveys conducted in 2018 by the American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP):
Many pathologists and clinical laboratory managers would agree that Stone is right. Dark Daily has repeatedly reported on growing staff shortages at clinical laboratories worldwide.
And in “Lab Staffing Shortages Reaching Dire Levels,” Dark Daily’s sister publication, The Dark Report, noted that CAP Today had characterized the current lab staffing shortage as going “from simmer to rolling boil” and that demand for medical technologists and other certified laboratory scientists far exceeds the supply. Consequently, many labs now use overtime and temp workers to handle daily testing, a strategy that has led to staff burnout and more turnover.
“There is a critical shortage of medical laboratory professionals in the US, and in Canada to a lesser extent,” wrote infectious disease specialist Judy Stone, MD (above), in an article she penned for Forbes. “Here [in the US],” she added, “we are 20-25,000 short on staff, with only 337,800 practicing. That is roughly one medical laboratory scientist per 1,000 people.” Clinical laboratories are well aware of the problem. A solution to solve it and return labs to former staffing levels is proving elusive. (Photo copyright: Forbes.)
Why the Shortfall?
In her Forbes article, Stone notes the following as factors behind the shortages:
Decline in training programs. “There are only [approximately] 240 medical laboratory technician and scientist training programs in the US, a 7% drop from 2000,” Stone wrote, adding that some states have no training programs at all. She notes that lab technicians must have a two-year associate degree while it takes an average of five years of post-secondary education to obtain a lab science degree.
Pay disparities. Citing data from the ASCP, Stone wrote that “medical lab professionals are paid 40%-60% less than nurses, physical therapists, or pharmacists.” Moreover, given the high cost of training, “many don’t feel the salary is worth the high investment,” she added.
Staff retention. In the ASCP’s 2018 job satisfaction survey, 85.3% of respondents reported burnout from their jobs, 36.5% cited problems with inadequate staffing, and nearly that many complained that workloads were too high.
Inconsistent licensing requirements. These requirements “are different from state to state,” Stone wrote. For example, the American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science (ASCLS) notes that 11 states plus Puerto Rico mandate licensure of laboratory personnel whereas others do not. Each of those states has specific licensing requirements, and while most offer reciprocity for other state licenses, “California [for example] does not recognize any certification or any other state license.”
In a 2018 report, “Addressing the Clinical Laboratory Workforce Shortage,” the ASCLS cited other factors contributing to the shortages, including retirement of aging personnel and increased demand for lab services.
Possible Solutions
Stone suggested the following remedies:
Improve working conditions. “We need to reduce the stress and workload of the lab professionals before we reach a greater crisis,” Stone wrote.
Standardize state certification. This will facilitate “mobility of staff and flexibility in responding to needs,” Stone suggested.
Improve education and training opportunities. The ASCLS has called for clinical lab science to be included in the Title VII health professions program, which provides funding for healthcare training. Rodney Rohde, PhD, a clinical laboratory science professor at Texas State University, “also suggests outreach to middle and high school STEM programs, to familiarize students early with career opportunities in the medical laboratory profession,” Stone wrote.
Recruit foreign workers. Stone suggested this as an interim solution, with programs to help them acclimate to practice standards in the US.
It will likely take multiple solutions like these to address the Great Resignation and bring the nation’s clinical laboratory staffing levels back to full. In the meantime, across the nation, a majority of clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups operate short-staffed and use overtime and temporary workers as a partial answer to their staffing requirements.
Federal agents allege ‘healthcare fraud abuses erode the integrity and trust patients have with those in the healthcare industry’
Here’s yet another example of how federal and state law enforcement agencies intend to further crack down on fraud involving COVID-19 testing, financial relief programs, vaccination cards, and other pandemic-related programs.
The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it has charged the owners of a Calif. clinical laboratory—as well as 19 other defendants—for their roles in fraudulent billing, kickbacks, and money laundering schemes to defraud Medicare of more than $214 million.
Imran Shams and Lourdes Navarro—owners of Matias Clinical Laboratory, Inc., in Baldwin Park, Glendale, Calif.—which was doing business as Health Care Providers Laboratory, Inc. (Matias)—were charged along with the other defendants with participating in fraud that took place in nine federal court districts.
The indictment alleges the pair paid kickbacks to marketers to obtain specimens and test orders. The lab company owners then laundered their profits through shell corporations in the US, transferred the money to foreign countries, and used it to purchase “real estate, luxury items, and goods and services for their personal use,” according to court documents.
“While millions of Americans were suffering and desperately seeking testing and treatment for COVID-19, some saw an opportunity for profit,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Kenneth A. Polite Jr., JD, during a news conference at the Justice Department, The New York Times reported.
“The actions of these criminals are unacceptable, and the FBI, working in coordination with our law enforcement partners, will continue to investigate and pursue those who exploit the integrity of the healthcare industry for profit,” said Luis Quesada of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Criminal Investigative Division in a press release.
“Throughout the pandemic, we have seen trusted medical professionals orchestrate and carry out egregious crimes against their patients all for financial gain,” said Assistant Director Luis Quesada (above) of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division in a DOJ press release. “These healthcare fraud abuses erode the integrity and trust patients have with those in the healthcare industry, particularly during a vulnerable and worrisome time for many individuals.” Clinical laboratories throughout the US should be aware of increased scrutiny to Medicare billing by the DOJ. (Photo copyright: El Paso Times.)
According to the DOJ’s Summary of Criminal Charges, “Matias” Clinical Laboratory also “performed and billed Medicare for urinalysis, routine blood work, and other tests, despite the fact that Shams had been excluded from all participation in Medicare for several decades.” The indictment alleges that Shams and Navarro fraudulently concealed Sham’s role in the clinical laboratory and his prior healthcare-related criminal convictions.
“She always tried to follow the law and provide appropriate and quality testing services to the laboratory’s patients. She looks forward to clearing her name in court,” Werksman said.
However, both Navarro and Shams have a checkered past with law enforcement agencies. According to a State of California Department of Justice news release, in 2000, the two were convicted in California on felony counts of Medi-Cal fraud, grand theft, money laundering, and identity theft for using the names of legitimate physicians without permission and filing thousands of false claims with the state for medical tests never performed.
The Calif. Attorney General’s Division of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse (DMFEA) seized approximately $1.1 million in uncashed warrants, which were returned to the Medi-Cal program. Since the 2000 case, Shams has been barred from filing for Medicare reimbursement, the New York Times reported.
Other Felony Indictments and Criminal Complaints for Healthcare Fraud
In a separate case, the DOJ announced Ron K. Elfenbein, MD, 47, of Arnold, Md., was charged by indictment with three counts of healthcare fraud in connection with an alleged scheme to defraud the US of more than $1.5 million in claims that were billed in connection with COVID-19 testing. Elfenbein is owner and medical director of Drs Ergent Care, LLC, which operates as FirstCall Medical Center. Elfenbein allegedly told his employees to submit claims to Medicare and other insurers for “moderate-complexity office visits” even though the COVID-19 test patients’ visits lasted five minutes or less.
And in April, the DOJ filed a criminal complaint against Colorado resident, Robert Van Camp, 53, for allegedly forging and selling hundreds of fake COVID-19 vaccination cards, which he sold to buyers and distributors in at least a dozen states.
“Van Camp allegedly told an undercover agent that he had sold cards to ‘people that are going to the Olympics in Tokyo, three Olympians and their coach in Tokyo, Amsterdam, Hawaii, Costa Rica, Honduras,’” the DOJ said in a news release, CNBC reported.
Van Camp also allegedly told that agent, “I’ve got a company, a veterinary company, has 30 people going to Canada every f— day, Canada back. Mexico is big. And like I said, I’m in 12 or 13 states, so until I get caught and go to jail, f— it, I’m taking the money, (laughs)! I don’t care,” the DOJ stated.
Clinical laboratory directors and pathologists know these fraud charges provide another example of how the misdeeds of a few reflect on the entire healthcare industry, potentially causing people to lose trust in organizations tasked with providing their healthcare.
By shifting away from fee-for-service, the state encouraged collaboration between hospitals and physicians to improve care and lower costs
Maryland “leads the way” in value-based payment reform, according to a series of articles published in Health Affairs. “The evidence is clear,” the article declares, “Maryland’s application of uniform prices within global budgets lowers total care costs, reduces unnecessary utilization, and incentivizes proactive preventive and chronic disease management care. Can other states implement Maryland-like payment models and achieve similar financial success?” It’s a fair question.
It is widely-known that clinical laboratory testing is integral to early and accurate diagnosis, and, under Maryland’s current reimbursement model, hospital/health system C-suite administrators have recognized that a robust clinical laboratory service is invaluable to showing progress toward cost containment and patient outcomes goals. But how did that come about? And what can other states learn from Maryland’s success?
Focusing on Better Patient Outcomes at Reduced Costs
Maryland’s current value-based payment arrangement set its first roots back in 2014. That is the year when the state of Maryland and the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a “new initiative to modernize Maryland’s unique all-payer rate-setting system for hospital services aimed at improving patient health and reducing costs,” declared a press release at that time.
Dubbed Maryland’s “All-Payer Model,” the press release went on to say, “This initiative will replace Maryland’s 36-year-old Medicare waiver to allow the state to adopt new policies that reduce per capita hospital expenditures and improve health outcomes as encouraged by the Affordable Care Act. Under this model, Medicare is estimated to save at least $330 million over the next five years.” Did that happen? Apparently so.
The state designed its “All-Payer Model” hospital payment system to render reimbursements based on populations served and the quality of care provided. The program focused on better patient outcomes and higher quality care at a reduced cost, instead of concentrating on the volume of care. The system incentivized hospitals to prevent readmissions, infections, and other potentially avoidable events.
“By shifting away from traditional fee-for-service payment, Maryland’s new model encourages collaboration between hospitals and physicians to improve patient care, promotes innovative approaches to prevention, and accelerates efforts to avoid unnecessary admissions and readmissions,” said pediatrician Joshua Sharfstein, MD, Vice Dean for Public Health Practice and Community Engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in a 2014 CMS press release.
Sharfstein was the Secretary of Maryland’s Department of Health from 2011 to 2014.
Then, in 2019, Maryland implemented the successor to the state’s “All-Payer Model” dubbed the “Total-Cost-of-Care (TCOC) Model.”
According to the CMS, whereas the All-Payer Model “established global budgets for certain Maryland hospitals to reduce Medicare hospital expenditures and improve quality of care for beneficiaries,” the TCOC “builds on the success of the Maryland All-Payer Model by creating greater incentives for healthcare providers to coordinate with each other and provide patient-centered care, and by committing the State to a sustainable growth rate in per capita total cost of care spending for Medicare beneficiaries.”
The TCOC began on January 1, 2019, and runs through December 31, 2026.
“Our focus is really on the health of our communities,” Nicole Stallings of the Maryland Hospital Association told State of Reform. “We don’t have a public hospital system, we don’t have tiered hospitals, we don’t have hospitals that are having to close because we are able to spread cost really equitably across our system. Equity being a core pillar is something that we know is critically important to maintain. We want to see more alignment there as we now try to tackle these population health goals. But we believe there’s more collaboration happening here than anywhere else,” she added. Clinical laboratories have an important role to play in population health. (Photo copyright: Center Maryland/Vimeo.)
Results of Maryland’s All-Payer-Model Program
In general, an all-payer system allows a state to manage healthcare prices via rate setting where all healthcare payers, including the government, private insurers, and employer healthcare plans, pay similar prices for services provided at individual hospitals.
When it announced the results of the five-year All-Payer-Model program, Maryland’s Health Services Cost Review Commission—the state agency responsible for regulating cost and quality of hospital care in Maryland—declared the program’s targets had been achieved. They included:
1.92% average annual growth per capita in hospital revenue (goal was to be less than or equal to 3.58%).
$1.4 billion cumulative Medicare savings in hospital expenditures.
Below national average for hospital readmissions of Medicare patients within five years.
All of Maryland’s 47 acute-care hospitals paid based on health populations served—not number of services rendered—with 98% of total hospital revenue under Global Budget Revenue (GBR) payment method.
In addition, the Maryland HSCRC report indicated that innovative care was a key tenet of the model and that hospitals benefitted from being given the ability to:
Invest in new healthcare programs that improve collaboration with other providers in the community.
Implement new clinical protocols, patient safety techniques, and follow-up procedures for high-risk patients at hospital discharge.
Create hubs of care to triage needs, coordinate important services, and ensure patients in need are connected to services outside the hospital.
After the success of the Maryland All-Payer Model, the state’s Total-Cost-of-Care Model program continued to focus on healthcare cost savings to Medicare. But it introduced population health improvement activities across the entire healthcare delivery system.
Future of Maryland’s Total-Cost-of-Care Model Program
Maryland’s TCOC Model program seeks more than $1 billion in Medicare savings by the end of 2023, or the fifth performance year of the program. According to the CMS Innovation Models webpage, Maryland’s TCOC Model includes the following three programs:
The Hospital Payment Program, where each hospital receives a population-based payment amount which covers all hospital services provided during a year.
The Care Redesign Program, which allows hospitals to make incentive payments to nonhospital healthcare providers who partner with hospitals to provide care.
The Maryland Primary Care Program, which incentivizes primary care providers to offer advanced care services to their patients.
An analysis of the first two years of the TCOC program found some significant improvements particularly in the areas of care management, access, and continuity.
In the first performance year of Maryland’s TCOC model, the state reduced spending by $365 million, relative to national trends, according to a Mathematica implementation report.
Part of the success of the model is due to its use of global, fixed budgets that are set for every hospital. Rates are established by an independent commission which prevents cost shifting and provides a more equitable system for patients where they pay the same price for the same service at all hospitals throughout the state, Mathematica noted.
“We believe [global budgets are] a real distinguishing factor, because unlike the rest of the country, our hospitals aren’t paid more to do more,” said Nicole Stallings, told State of Reform. Stallings is Chief External Affairs Officer and Senior Vice President, Government Affairs and Policy at the Maryland Hospital Association (MHA).
Expanding Maryland’s All-Payer-Model Program to Other States
In 2016, CMS established the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) to identify ways to improve healthcare quality and reduce overall costs in the Medicare, Medicaid, and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) programs. Maryland’s All-Payer model has produced the most savings out of any of the projects and experimental payment programs researched by CMMI. The success of Maryland’s programs prompted CMMI to look at expanding similar programs in other states.
Reductions in hospital costs combined with improved outcomes can only benefit patients and the healthcare industry in the long run. Since clinical laboratory testing is integral to early diagnoses and treatment of diseases, under Maryland’s current reimbursement model a robust clinical laboratory service is invaluable for succeeding at cost containment and patient outcome goals.
Company was accused of manipulating clinical laboratory reports from previous COVID-19 tests to forge new results, and sending “negative” test results to patients even though their tests had never been completed
National COVID-19 testing chain Sameday Health (a.k.a., Sameday Technologies) will pay $22.5 million—and its contracted doctor an additional $3.9 million—to settle a case with the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Attorney’s Office over alleged falsifying, faking, and failing to deliver more than 500 COVID-19 test results to consumers.
According to an announcement from the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, the settlements require Sameday Health and physician Jeffrey Toll, MD, to pay restitution and civil penalties, and to comply with permanent injunctions prohibiting them from participating in the alleged activities that led to the City Attorney’s investigation.
“If you get a negative test, you assume it’s safe to go to work, visit family and friends, or take a vacation. But the victims of this alleged scheme might unknowingly have spread COVID to others or failed to receive timely and appropriate care themselves,” Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer, JD, said in the announcement.
“We’ve intervened to protect consumers in numerous major COVID-related matters, but this may be the most significant consumer protection case to emerge from the pandemic,” he added.
Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer, JD, (above) teamed with Los Angeles CountyDistrict Attorney George Gascón to reach a $26 million settlement with Sameday Health of Venice, Calif., and its contracted physician over phony COVID-19 test results. “It’s beyond outrageous that anyone would falsify COVID tests, as we allege happened here,” Feuer said in a statement. Clinical laboratories will want to note the fervor at which state officials are pursuing million-dollar settlements in COVID-19 fraud cases. (Photo copyright: California Globe.)
The LA City Attorney’s Complaint Against Sameday Technologies
Sameday Technologies, which operates under the name Sameday Health, has 55 COVID-19 testing sites throughout the country, with 16 locations in Los Angeles County, including five in the city.
The complaint released by the LA City Attorney’s Office states that consumers “paid a premium to get a rapid COVID-19 PCR test from Sameday Technologies, Inc. (Sameday), a Venice, Calif.-based start-up turned national chain that promised reliable COVID-19 test results in 24- hours or less.”
Sameday did not own its own clinical laboratory and its primary third-party vendor labs “were only required to aim to deliver results to Sameday’s consumers within 24-hours or 48-hours of the laboratory receiving the consumers’ testing samples from Sameday, along with all of the paperwork and information necessary to track, process, and report the result.
“But Sameday, unable to meet its 24-hour guarantee, sent hundreds of customers fake test results and laboratory reports stating that they had tested negative for COVID-19, when in reality Sameday’s laboratories had not run (and in many cases had not even received) the consumers’ tests,” the attorneys’ complaint states.
In addition to forging and falsifying hundreds of test results, the LA City Attorney’s Office alleges Sameday committed insurance fraud by partnering with a doctor to steer insured customers into three-minute-long medically unnecessary consultations. Using a virtual call center of physicians, the attorney’s office states, Sameday “submitted claims to insurance companies with codes that falsely represented the length of the consultations, misrepresented the purpose of the tests and consults, and sometimes sought reimbursement for calls that never even happened.” The state maintains Sameday in one year made “millions of dollars” from California-based insurance claims alone.
Additional Settlement with LA-based Medical Internist
In a statement provided to the Los Angeles Times, Sameday Health stated it was founded in September 2020 “to make fast, reliable, COVID testing available to everyone.
“In the early days, amidst the chaos of massive surges in demand for services, and shortages in supplies, we failed to meet the standards for excellence our customers deserve,” the company said. “We have corrected the problems that arose back in 2020 and have made significant investments in compliance and systems to ensure that we meet our customers’ expectations. We agreed to settle with the City Attorney and the LA District Attorney in order to move forward and to allow the 1,200 men and women of Sameday to place their focus on providing top-level service to the communities we serve.”
Sameday’s founder and CEO Felix Huettenbach also is named in the settlement, having agreed to join with Sameday in paying $9.5 million in restitution and $13 million in penalties and to no longer access any test result or medical records belonging to any Sameday Health customers.
The Los Angeles Times reported that a separate $3.9 million settlement was reached with Jeffrey Toll, MD, a Los Angeles-based internist who serves as Medical Director for concierge medical practice Good Life Medical Services.
Feuer and Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón maintain Toll was a partner in Sameday Health’s alleged insurance fraud. In their complaint, they state patient phone calls would last two to three minutes and cost insurers about $450. In exchange, Toll allegedly gave Sameday Health a large portion of the profits, the complaint alleges.
Toll’s attorney D. Shawn Burkley, JD, of Werksman Jackson and Quinn LLP denied any wrongdoing, telling the Los Angeles Times, “We settled the matter, but we do not believe that Dr. Toll did anything that was unethical.”
Settlements with Toll and Sameday Health must still be approved by a judge.
Patients to Receive Refunds for PCR Clinical Laboratory Tests
In late April, Feuer announced that Californians who paid out of pocket for PCR tests from Sameday Health between October 1 and December 31, 2020, are expected to be issued refunds from the company as part of the settlement, Patch reported.
More than 800 million COVID-19 tests have been performed in the United States since the pandemic began in 2020, according to Our World in Data statistics. Though incidents of fraud have been rare, clinical laboratory managers and pathologists who read Dark Daily will be aware of the growing number of state and federal fraud investigations being opened since the COVID-19 pandemic began to wane.
The settlement with Sameday Health may serve to put other pandemic startups—and their clinical laboratories—on notice that deceitful and fraudulent practices will likely not go unnoticed by federal or state agencies.
