INTERPACE BIOSCIENCES, INC. 10-K

ITEM 1. BUSINESS Company Overview We are a company that provides molecular diagnostics, bioinformatics and pathology services for evaluation of risk of cancer by leveraging the latest technology in personalized medicine for improved patient diagnosis and management. We develop and commercialize genomic tests and related first line assays principally focused on early detection of patients with indeterminate biopsies and at high risk of cancer using the latest technology. 4 Customer Category Types of Customers Nature of Services Clinical services ● Hospitals ● Physicians ● Cancer Centers ● Clinics Clinical services provide information on diagnosis, prognosis and predicting treatment outcomes of cancers to guide patient management. ● Commercial laboratories ● Pathology groups Our clinical services’ customers consist primarily of physicians, hospitals, cancer centers, commercial laboratories, pathology groups and clinics. Our largest customer for ThyGeNEXT ® and ThyraMIR ® v2 products in 2022 was Laboratory Corporation of America ® or LabCorp. Our revenue channels include reimbursement by Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicaid, and direct client billings (for example, hospitals and clinics), and commercial payers such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, Cigna, United Healthcare and others. Strategic Disposition of Pharma Business On August 31, 2022, Interpace Biosciences, Inc. (“Interpace” or the “Company”) and Interpace Pharma Solutions, Inc. (the “Subsidiary) entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with Flagship Biosciences, Inc. (the “Purchaser”) pursuant to which the Purchaser agreed to (i) acquire substantially all of the assets of the Subsidiary used in Subsidiary’s business of complex molecular analysis for the early diagnosis and treatment of cancer and supporting the development of targeted therapeutics (the “Business”) and (ii) assume and pay certain liabilities related to the purchased assets as set forth in the Purchase Agreement (collectively, the “Transaction”). The Transaction closed on August 31, 2022. As consideration for the Transaction, under the Purchase Agreement, the Company received a total purchase price of approximately $6.2 million after working capital and other adjustments ($0.5 million of which was deposited into escrow), subject to the assumption by the Purchaser of certain specified liabilities. In addition, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase Agreement, Purchaser was obligated to pay the Company an earnout of up to $2.0 million based on revenue for the period beginning September 1, 2021 and ending August 31, 2022. The Company received an earnout payment of approximately $1.0 million in September 2022 which is the fully settled amount and there will be no further earnout payments in the future. The Purchase Agreement includes a one-year commitment of the Company not to compete with the Business, recruit or hire any former employees of the Subsidiary who accept employment with the Purchaser in connection with the Transaction, or divert or attempt to divert from Purchaser any business to be performed from any of the contracts or agreements with customers as set forth in the Purchase Agreement. The Purchase Agreement also contains customary representations and warranties, post-closing covenants and mutual indemnification obligations for, among other things, any inaccuracy or breach of any representation or warranty and any breach or non-fulfillment of any covenant. In connection with the Transaction, on August 31, 2022, the Company, the Subsidiary and the Purchaser entered into a Shared Services Agreement (the “Shared Services Agreement”) pursuant to which Interpace agreed to provide, or cause its affiliates to provide, to the Purchaser certain services set forth in the Shared Services Agreement on a transitional basis and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Shared Services Agreement (the “Services”). As consideration for the Services provided by the Company, the Purchaser is paying the Company the amounts specified for each Service as set forth in the Shared Services Agreement. The Company’s obligations to provide the Services will terminate with respect to each Service as set forth in the Shared Services Agreement. The Purchaser is identified as a related party of the Company and is an affiliate of both Ampersand 2018 Limited Partnership (“Ampersand”), a private equity investor in the Company, and BroadOak Fund V, L.P. (“BroadOak”), a secured lender to the Company. Ampersand and BroadOak have each provided equity financing to the Purchaser, collectively own a majority of the Purchaser’s outstanding equity securities and are represented on its Board of Directors. The Company is using the remaining net proceeds of the Transaction to fund its future business activities and for general working capital purposes. As a result of the sale, the gain on sale and all operations from the Subsidiary have been classified as discontinued operations for all periods presented. 5 Continuing Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic Beginning in the first quarter of 2021, there has been a trend in many parts of the world of increasing availability and administration of vaccines against COVID-19, as well as an easing of restrictions on social, business, travel and government activities and functions. On the other hand, infection rates and regulations continue to fluctuate in various regions and there are ongoing global impacts resulting from the pandemic, including challenges and increases in costs for logistics and supply chains. We have also previously been affected by temporary laboratory closures, employment and compensation adjustments and impediments to administrative activities. The level and nature of the disruption caused by COVID-19 is unpredictable, may be cyclical and long-lasting and may vary from location to location. In addition, we have experienced and are experiencing varying levels of inflation resulting in part from various supply chain disruptions, increased shipping and transportation costs, increased raw material and labor costs and other disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and general global economic conditions. The continuing impact that the COVID-19 pandemic will have on our operations, including duration, severity and scope, remains highly uncertain and cannot be fully predicted at this time. While we believe we have generally recovered from the adverse impact that the COVID-19 pandemic had on our business during 2020, we believe that the COVID-19 pandemic could continue to adversely impact our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition in the future. We continue to monitor the COVID-19 pandemic and the guidance that is being provided by relevant federal, state and local public health authorities and may take additional actions based upon their recommendations. At this time, the Biden Administration does not plan to renew the COVID-19 national and public health emergencies when they expire on May 11, which has been extended every 90 days since they were established in 2020. This decision, therefore, appears to represent a de-escalation in the way the government treats the pandemic, as well as a perception that most people have either been vaccinated or have recovered from a COVID-19 infection (or both), Despite this anticipated change in policy, COVID-19 is still with us and as the virus continues to reproduce and mutate, the Administration’s policy may need be adjusted. In any event, it is likely that we will still need to make adjustments to our operating plans in reaction to developments that are beyond our control. Impact of the ongoing military conflict between Russia and Ukraine. In February 2022, Russian military forces invaded Ukraine, and although the length, impact, and outcome of the ongoing war in Ukraine is highly unpredictable, this war has led, and could continue to lead, to significant market and other disruptions, including instability in financial markets, supply chain interruptions, political and social instability, and increases in cyberattacks, intellectual property theft, and espionage. We are actively monitoring the situation in Ukraine and assessing its impact on our business. We have no way to predict the progress or outcome of the war in Ukraine or its impacts in Ukraine, Russia, or Belarus as the war, and any resulting government reactions, are rapidly developing and beyond our control. The extent and duration of the war, sanctions, and resulting market disruptions could be significant and could potentially have a substantial impact on the global economy and our business for an unknown period of time. Any of the above-mentioned factors could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Any such disruptions may also magnify the impact of other risks described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 6 Market Overview Global Molecular Diagnostic Market The global molecular diagnostics market is estimated to be $23.2 billion (USD) in 2022 and is expected to grow to $30.2 billion (USD) by 2027 with a Compound Annual Growth rate or CAGR of 5.4% between 2022 and 2027, according to Markets and Markets’s Molecular Diagnostics Market report (Report Code: MD 2521, published May 2022). The global esoteric testing market is projected to reach 36.3 billion (USD) by 2026, growing at a CAGR of 11.6% from 2022 to 2026 (Markets and Markets, Esoteric Testing Market report published June 2021, Report Code: MD 5930). We believe that the specialty molecular diagnostics market offers significant growth and strong patient value given the substantial opportunity it affords to lower healthcare costs by helping to reduce unnecessary surgeries and ensuring the appropriate frequency of monitoring. We are keenly focused on growing our test volumes; securing additional insurance coverage and reimbursement; maintaining and growing our current reimbursement; supporting revenue growth for our molecular diagnostic tests; introducing related first-line product and service extensions; and expanding our business by developing and promoting synergistic products in our markets. We also believe that BarreGEN ® is a potentially significant pipeline product, and we are continuing to provide necessary resources to support the development process. United States Clinical Oncology Market Despite many advances in the treatment of cancer, it remains one of the greatest areas of unmet medical need According to estimates from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), by 2040 it is expected that there will be 16.3 million cancer deaths worldwide simply due to the growth and aging of the global population. Within the United States, cancer is the second most common cause of death, exceeded only by heart disease. In 2022, it is expected that there will be 1.9 million new cancer cases and almost 610,000 cancer-related deaths, or about 1,670 deaths each day. In the United States, while pancreatic cancer represents only about 3% of all new cancer cases, it is the third leading cause of cancer death. The incidence, deaths and economic loss caused by cancer are staggering. Cancer-attributed medical care costs in the United States are substantial and projected to increase dramatically by 2030 to an estimated $246 billion (USD). The following table taken from Common Cancer Types, originally published by the National Cancer Institute (Updated: May 10, 2022) shows estimated new cases and deaths in 2022 in the United States for selected major cancer types: Cancer Type Estimated New Cases Estimated Deaths Bladder 81,180 17,100 Breast (Female – Male) 287,858 – 2,710 43,250 – 530 Colon and Rectal (Combined) 151,030 52,580 Kidney (Renal Cell and Renal Pelvis) 79,000 13,920 Leukemia (All Type) 60,650 24,000 Liver and Intrahepatic Bile Duct 41,260 30,520 Lung (Including Bronchus) 236,740 130,180 Melanoma 99,780 7,650 Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 80,470 20,250 Pancreatic 62,210 49,830 Prostate 268,490 34,500 Thyroid 43,800 2,230 Our Strategy Our primary goal is to become a leader in providing high quality and dependable personalized medicine with exceptional growth. Our strategy is to grow our business both organically as well as by selective partnering, which could potentially include licensing, acquisitions or mergers, to generate positive returns for our shareholders and driving towards cash flow break-even. We expect to not only continue to further develop our existing gastrointestinal and endocrine assays but to also expand our presence in other markets where we have expertise and access. Our existing customer base and broad-based capabilities provide us a unique window not only into our current customers’ needs but also permit us to anticipate their future needs. 7 The key tactics to achieve our goals include: ● Expanding our existing commercial products, especially PancraGEN ® , ThyGeNEXT ® and ThyraMIR ® , focusing on personalized medicine and early intervention related to cancer risk; ● Accelerating the clinical development and commercialization of BarreGEN ® , our esophageal cancer risk classifier for Barrett’s Esophagus, working with our recently developed Key Opinion Leaders (“KOL’s”) and expanding clinical studies to seek key reimbursement support while seeking partners to collaborate with us; ● Implementation of automation and focus on improved operating efficiencies in the clinical laboratories to provide consistent superior quality testing and reporting at reduced costs; ● Broadening coverage and reimbursement for our clinical tests including: ○ Initiating and expanding studies to demonstrate that our tests are effective; ○ Meeting standards necessary to be consistent with leading clinical guidelines; ○ Executing by our internal managed care team; ○ Collaborating with KOL’s; and ○ Establishing payer relationship and in-network contracts serving our diagnostic customers. ● Developing and commercializing other related first-line clinical assays and expanding our service offerings such as PanDNA ® , a DNA only version of PancraGEN ® , and markers for aggressive thyroid cancer; ● Expanding our commercial sales staff rationally, while supporting our products with high quality data and studies; ● Exploring partnering opportunities to acquire new technologies; and ● Expanding our bioinformatics data collected (currently from over 60,000 patients), utilizing registries to improve our assays and leveraging our data with potential collaborators. Our Service Offerings Our business is based on demand for molecular- and biomarker-based characterization of cancers from one main sector: clinical services for physicians, hospitals and clinics. Clinicians and oncologists in cancer centers and hospitals seek molecular-based testing since these methods often produce higher value and more accurate cancer diagnostic information than traditional analytical methods. Our proprietary and unique disease-focused or esoteric tests aim to provide actionable information that can guide patient management decisions, potentially resulting in decreased costs. We continue to pursue the strategy of trying to demonstrate increased value and efficacy with payers who wish to contain costs and academic collaborators seeking to develop new insights and treatments. We aim to provide physicians and patients with diagnostic options for detecting genomic and other molecular alterations that are associated with gastrointestinal, endocrine, and lung cancers. Our clinical services’ customers consist primarily of physicians, hospitals and clinics. 8 Clinical services Our clinical services business commercializes clinically useful molecular diagnostic tests and molecular pathology services. We commercialize genomic tests and related first-line assays principally focused on risk-stratification of cancer using the latest technology to help personalize medicine and improve patient diagnosis and management. Our tests and services provide mutational analysis of genomic material contained in suspicious cysts, nodules, and lesions with the goal of better informing surgery or surveillance treatment decisions in patients suspected of thyroid, pancreatic, and other cancers. The molecular diagnostic tests we offer enable healthcare providers to stratify cancer risk, helping to avoid unnecessary surgical treatment in patients at low risk, while also helping to identify patients that would benefit from surgical intervention. Our mission is to assist healthcare providers in the diagnosis, triage, and treatment of patients through advanced diagnostics. Our laboratory is licensed pursuant to federal law under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (“CLIA”) and are accredited by College of American Pathologists (“CAP”) and our products are approved by New York State. We are leveraging our laboratory to refine and commercialize our assays and products. We aim to provide physicians and patients with diagnostic options for detecting genomic and other molecular alterations that are associated with gastrointestinal, endocrine, and other cancers. Our customers consist primarily of physicians, hospitals, and clinics. We currently have five commercialized molecular diagnostic tests in the marketplace: PancraGEN ® , a pancreatic cyst and pancreaticobiliary solid lesion genomic test that helps physicians better risk-stratify pancreaticobiliary cancers using our proprietary PathFinderTG ® platform and full integration of clinical factors; PanDNA ® , an alternate reporting option of the PathFinderTG platform, that provides physicians the “molecular only” information provided within PancraGEN; ThyGeNEXT ® , an expanded oncogenic mutation panel that helps “rule-in” and “rule-out” malignancy in thyroid nodules; ThyraMIR ® , used in combination with ThyGeNEXT ® , which further stratifies thyroid nodules for malignancy risk utilizing a proprietary microRNA gene expression assay; and RespriDx ® a genomic test that also utilizes our PathFinderTG ® platform, to help physicians differentiate metastatic or recurrent lung cancer from the presence of newly formed primary lung cancer. Gastrointestinal Cancer Products Our current diagnostic assay, PancraGEN ® , is a reporting option of our proprietary PathFinderTG ® platform. This platform is designed to use advanced clinical algorithms to accurately risk-stratify patients suspected of having pancreatic cancer by assessing panels of DNA abnormalities in patients who have pancreaticobiliary lesions (cysts or solid masses). PanDNA ® is a “molecular only” reporting option of PathFinderTG ® and is used by physicians who prefer to perform their own integration of first-line testing results to stratify pancreatic cancer risk. Based on the American Cancer Society Cancer 2023 Cancer Facts and Figures, pancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer deaths in the U.S. (estimated) with an average five-year survival rate of 12%. PancraGEN ® and PanDNA ® are designed to determine the risk of malignancy in pancreatic cysts and pancreaticobiliary solid lesions, which have potential for developing into cancer. We believe that PancraGEN ® is the leader in the market for integrated molecular diagnostic tests for determining risk of pancreaticobiliary malignancy. We currently estimate that the immediate addressable market for PancraGEN ® is approximately 124,000 indeterminate pancreaticobiliary lesions annually or approximately $200 million annually based on the current size of the patient population and reimbursement rates. To date, PancraGEN ® testing has been used in more than 64,000 clinical cases. The National Pancreatic Cyst Registry study published in Endoscopy in 2015 demonstrated that PancraGEN ® more accurately determined the malignancy potential of pancreatic cysts than international consensus 2012 imaging criteria, helping to ensure that surgery is reserved for the most appropriate patients. This is important because pancreatic surgery is high-risk surgery with over 40% postoperative morbidity rates and 0%–15% postoperative mortality rates. (Ahola, et al, March 2020, doi.org/10.1177/1457496919900411 ) When molecular analysis is not performed, the vast majority of all pancreatic cyst surgeries are performed on cystic lesions that do not harbor malignancy. 9 The American Gastroenterological Association 2015 Guidelines have cautioned that many pancreatic surgeries have been performed unnecessarily for lesions that will not progress to invasive adenocarcinoma. In addition, the 2016 guidelines published by the American Society of Gastroenterology Endoscopy (ASGE) in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy included a specific recommendation for use of molecular testing in specific circumstances where other types of testing and analysis have not provided sufficient data on which to determine the best course of action for patient treatment. Accordingly, we believe that PancraGEN ® provides a highly reliable diagnostic and prognostic option that can accurately stratify cancer risk in circumstances where risk of cancer is otherwise uncertain. Endocrine Cancer Products We currently market and sell a combination testing platform that can inform cancer risk in indeterminate thyroid nodules—those that are not clearly malignant or benign by cytology. ThyGeNEXT ® is a next generation DNA and RNA sequencing oncogene and mRNA fusion panel. The markers within the ThyGeNEXT ® oncogene panel provide clinical utility by informing diagnosis, prognosis, and targeted treatment guidance aligned to FDA-approved therapies for RET, NTRK , and other markers found within the panel. ThyGeNEXT ® works with our second endocrine cancer diagnostic test, ThyraMIR ® v2, an assay that measures the relative expression of eleven distinct microRNAs. The combined analysis of the ThyGeNEXT ® and ThyraMIR ® v2 test results provides highly accurate “rule-in” and “rule-out” malignancy risk guidance. We estimate the total market for our endocrine (thyroid) cancer assays is approximately $221 million (USD) annually based on the current size of the patient population, estimated numbers of indeterminate biopsies and reimbursement rates. The mutational analysis provided by ThyGeNEXT ® can help inform treatment alone when strong driver BRAF V600E-like mutations are found. However, reflex to ThyraMIR ® v2 occurs approximately 85% of the time to provide a greater understanding of malignancy risk and is especially helpful when weaker drivers of malignancy, such as RAS -like mutations, are found. Endocrinologists, ear, nose and throat (“ENT”), and other specialists evaluate thyroid nodules for possible cancer by collecting cells through Fine Needle Aspiration (“FNA”) that are then analyzed by cytopathologists to determine whether or not a thyroid nodule is cancerous. It is estimated that approximately 25% or well over 100,000 biopsies analyzed annually yield indeterminate results, meaning they cannot be diagnosed as definitely being malignant or benign by cytopathology alone. In the past, guidelines recommended that some patients with indeterminate cytopathology results undergo surgery to remove all or part of their thyroid to obtain an accurate diagnosis by looking directly at the thyroid tissue. According to a study published by Wang, et al. in 2011, in approximately 77% of these cases, the thyroid nodule proved to be benign. Current practice and guidelines, such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (“NCCN”) and American Thyroid Association (“ATA”), support use of molecular analysis for nodules with indeterminate cytology results as this testing can prove beneficial to further characterize these lesions and help support optimal patient management. Lung Cancer Product — RespriDx ® Test and Metastatic versus Primary Platform RespriDx ® compares the mutational fingerprint of two or more sites of cancer to determine whether the neoplastic deposits are representative of a recurrence (metastasis) of lung cancer or a new primary or independent tumor. The test, which currently provides only nominal revenues, defines the presence or absence of cancer in atypical cytology by comparing the mutational profile with that of known previous cancer. RespriDx ® assists in determining the most appropriate course of treatment, whether chemotherapy, surgery, or other modalities. CLIA Certified and CAP Accredited Laboratory Our testing is performed in our state of the art CLIA certified College of American Pathologists (“CAP”) accredited laboratory in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. CLIA is a federal law regulating clinical laboratories that perform testing on specimens derived from humans for the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of disease. Clinical laboratories must be certified under CLIA in order to perform testing on human specimens, unless they fall within an exception to CLIA certification, such as research laboratories that test human specimens but do not report patient-specific results for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of any disease or impairment of, or the assessment of the health of individual patients. CLIA certification is also required to be eligible to bill Federal and State healthcare programs, as well as many private third-party payers, for diagnostic testing and services. In addition, proprietary tests must also be recognized as part of an accredited program under CLIA so that they can be offered in a CLIA-certified laboratory. CLIA is intended to ensure the quality and reliability of clinical laboratories in the United States by mandating specific standards in the areas of personnel qualifications, administration, and participation in proficiency testing, patient test management, quality control, quality assurance and inspections. For renewal of CLIA certification, clinical laboratories are subject to survey and inspection every two years. Moreover, CLIA inspectors may make random inspections of clinical laboratories outside of the renewal process. 10 Sales and Marketing Our sales and marketing efforts consist of both direct and indirect sales channels with the efforts focused in the United States. We also have collaborative arrangements with other laboratory services companies. Our commercialization efforts for our clinical services are currently focused on endocrine (thyroid), gastroenterologic (pancreatic) and lung cancers. Communication of our marketing messaging and value propositions is accomplished through multiple channels, including two field-based commercial sales teams of approximately 32 representatives and managers. In addition, we employ medical science liaisons (MSLs)—therapeutic specialists with advanced scientific training to aid in communicating complex scientific and medical information to leading physicians. Other channels of communication include print, digital advertising, social media, a web presence, peer-reviewed publications, and trade show exhibits. We believe that our molecular diagnostic tests provide value to payers, physicians, and patients by improving patient care and lowering healthcare costs through avoidance of unnecessary surgeries, reducing the morbidity associated with unnecessary surgeries for patients, and providing better diagnostic and prognostic insights to physicians. We support the value propositions of our tests through rigorous science that supports the analytical and clinical validity as well as clinical utility of our tests. We believe our repository of bioinformatics data accumulated from our testing is a valuable tool in developing and refining our analytics while also potentially being an even more valuable tool in the future. We also communicate to payers, integrated delivery systems and hospital systems about our molecular diagnostic tests’ value through highly trained professionals who are experienced in reimbursement and business-to-business selling and through face-to-face meetings, phone calls, digital communications and advisory boards. We develop health economic analyses and budget impact models and incorporate these along with our clinical validation studies, and clinical utility studies to demonstrate our molecular diagnostic tests’ value to this distinct and important constituency. Competition We compete on the basis of factors such as reputation, scientific expertise, service quality, management experience, performance record, customer satisfaction, accessibility, flexibility, ability to respond to specific customer needs, integration skills, and product portfolio and price. Increased competition and/or a decrease in demand for our clinical and pharma services may also lead to other forms of competition. We believe that our business has a variety of competitive advantages that allow us to compete successfully in the marketplace. While we believe we compete effectively with respect to each of these factors, certain competitors of ours are substantially larger than us and have greater capital, personnel and other resources than we have. Many of our competitors also offer broader product lines outside of the molecular diagnostic testing market, and many have greater brand recognition than we do. Moreover, our competitors may make rapid technological developments that may result in our technologies and products becoming obsolete before we recover the expenses incurred to develop them or before they generate significant revenue. Increased competition may lead to pricing pressures and competitive practices that could have a material adverse effect on our market share and our ability to attract new business opportunities as well as our business, financial condition and results of operations. We also compete with physicians and the medical community who use traditional methods to diagnose gastrointestinal and endocrine cancers. In many cases, practice guidelines in the United States have recommended therapies, surveillance or surgery to determine if a patient’s condition is malignant or benign. As a result, we believe that we will need to continue to educate physicians and the medical community on the value and benefits of our molecular diagnostic tests in order to change clinical practices and continue to support the use of molecular diagnostic tests in clinical guidelines. 11 Specifically, in regard to our thyroid diagnostic tests, Veracyte, Inc., or Veracyte, has a molecular thyroid nodule cancer diagnostic test (Afirma) that is the current market leader and competes with our ThyGeNEXT ® and ThyraMir ® v2 tests. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, or Quest, currently offers a diagnostic test similar to the earlier version of our ThyGeNEXT ® test and announced an agreement to distribute the Afirma test in partnership with Veracyte. CBLPath, Inc., or CBL, offers ThyroSeq ® , a diagnostic test that analyzes genetic alterations using next-generation sequencing. In addition, other thyroid based endocrine competitors include Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc., or other companies we are not aware of. We are currently not aware of any direct competitors to PancraGEN ® that integrate clinical, imaging, cytology, and molecular information to stratify patients’ risk for malignancy and inform physicians on the best course of action, i.e., surgery or surveillance and surveillance interval length. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center now offers PancreaSeq ® , a Next Generation Sequencing “gene only” panel that focuses on the analysis of mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes, most of which may help establish the type of pancreatic cyst present and some of which may help establish the presence of malignancy. Some of these related genomic regions are included in PancraGEN ® . This laboratory test however does not integrate any additional information to fully characterize a patient’s risk for pancreatic cancer. Importantly, there has been no long-term clinical validation or utility studies completed on any gene panel for pancreatic cyst fluid other than that associated with PancraGEN ® . PancraGEN ® has been validated in multiple studies and peer reviewed publications and has been used in over 45,000 patients. Additionally, we validated and launched a DNA only version of PancraGEN ® , known as PanDNA ® . It is also possible that we face future competition from other laboratory-developed tests (LDT’s), developed by commercial laboratories such as Quest and other diagnostic companies developing new tests or technologies. Furthermore, we may be subject to competition as a result of new, unforeseen technologies that may be developed by our competitors in the gastrointestinal and endocrine cancer molecular diagnostic tests space. We are aware of companies that are in the process of developing assays and LDTs for Barrett’s esophagus, such as Cernostics Inc. In addition, NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc., or NeoGenomics, is marketing a Barrett’s assay, so it appears likely that this space will also be more competitive in the future. Research and Development We conduct our research and development activities at our CLIA-certified and CAP-accredited laboratory in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Our research and development efforts primarily focus on providing data and analyses necessary to support and improve our existing products on the market. Additionally, our research and development activities provide product line extension of our existing products as well as new product opportunities utilizing our proprietary platforms and extensive bioinformatics repositories and data bases. Also, we use reagents for cross site validations and validations of new assays to be used in clinical trials. We may enter into collaborative relationships with research and academic institutions for the development of additional or enhanced tests to further increase the depth and breadth of our test offerings. Where appropriate, we may also enter into licensing agreements with our collaborative partners to both license intellectual property for use in our test panels as well as licensing such intellectual property out. Our research and development costs are primarily clinical costs and were approximately $0.7 million and $1.5 million in 2022 and 2021, respectively. We continue to generate and publish clinical evidence related to our key products, including ThyGeNEXT ® and ThyraMIR ® v2 and PancraGEN ® as well as our pipeline product, BarreGEN ® . Clinical Evidence ● The first manuscript reporting the clinical performance of ThyGeNEXT ® and ThyraMIR ® tests was accepted in July 2020 in the Diagnostic Cytopathology (Lupo M et al. Diagnostic Cytopathology. 2020; DOI: 10.10001/dc.24564.) 12 Intellectual Property Patents, trademarks and other proprietary rights are important to us. We generate our own intellectual property portfolio and hold numerous patents and patent applications covering our existing and future products and technologies. As of December 31, 2022, we owned seven issued United States Patents. The U.S. patents are directed to, amongst other things, methods of measuring carcinoembryonic antigen in a biological sample; methods for treating subject with a high risk of disease progression from Barrett’s metaplasia to esophageal adenocarcinoma; and methods of treating a subject identified with a papillary thyroid carcinoma. As of December 31, 2022, we owned three issued patents outside of the United States, one each in Australia, Japan, and Israel. As of December 31, 2022, we owned two pending patent applications in the United States. Provided all maintenance fees and annuities are paid, our issued United States patents expire from 2031 through 2034, our foreign patents expire in 2031, and our pending patent applications, if issued, are expected to expire between 2027 and 2038, absent any disclaimers, adjustments or extensions. Our patents are directed to certain of the technologies relating to detecting, diagnosing, and classifying thyroid tumors, pancreatic cysts and other forms of gastrointestinal disorders, such as Barrett’s esophagus. In addition to our own molecular diagnostic test development efforts, we are currently using, and intend to use in the future, certain tests and biomarkers that have been developed by third parties or by us in collaboration with third parties. While a significant amount of intellectual property in the field of molecular diagnostic tests is already in the public domain, ThyraMIR ® v2, ThyGeNEXT ® , and some of the future tests developed by us, or by third parties on our behalf for use in our tests, may require, that we license the right to use certain intellectual property from third parties and pay customary royalties or make one time payments. On August 13, 2014, we consummated an agreement to acquire certain fully developed thyroid and other tests in development for thyroid cancer, associated intellectual property and a biobank with more than 5,000 patient tissue samples pursuant to an asset purchase agreement, or the Asuragen Asset Purchase Agreement. We paid $8.0 million at closing and paid an additional $0.5 million to Asuragen for certain integral transition service obligations set forth in a transition services agreement, entered into concurrently with the Asuragen Asset Purchase Agreement. We also entered into two license agreements with Asuragen (the Asuragen License Agreement and the CPRIT License Agreement) relating to our ability to sell the fully developed diagnostic tests and other tests in development for thyroid cancer. Under the Asuragen License Agreement, we owed a $500,000 milestone payment, all of which was paid in installments throughout 2016 and paid in full as of January 13, 2017. We are further obligated to pay royalties on the future net sales of tests based on the miR Inform ® pancreas platform, if developed, on the future net sales of tests based on the miR Inform ® thyroid platform (i.e., ThyGeNEXT ® ) and potentially on certain other thyroid diagnostics tests. In October 2014, we acquired RedPath Integrated Pathology Inc. (RedPath) which included its pancreatic and gastrointestinal assets. Additionally, we have a broad and growing trademark portfolio. We have secured trademark registrations for the marks AccuCEA ® (or TM), PancraGEN ® , PanDNA ® , BarreGEN ® and miR Inform ® in the United States, and miR Inform ® with the World Intellectual Property Organization. We rely on a combination of trade secrets and proprietary processes to protect our intellectual property. We enter into non-disclosure agreements with certain vendors and suppliers to attempt to ensure the confidentiality of our intellectual property. We also enter into non-disclosure agreements with our customers. In addition, we require that all our employees sign confidentiality and intellectual property assignment agreements. Raw Material and Suppliers We procure reagents, equipment and other materials that we use to perform our tests from sole suppliers. We also purchase components used in our collection kits from sole-source suppliers. Some of these items are unique to these suppliers and vendors. Our most significant suppliers for reagents and supplies include Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Illumina, Inc., Qiagen N.V., and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG. While we have developed alternate sourcing strategies for most of these materials and vendors, we cannot be certain whether these strategies will be effective or the alternative sources will be available when we need them. If these suppliers can no longer provide us with the materials we need to perform the tests and for our collection kits, if the materials do not meet our quality specifications or are otherwise unusable, if we cannot obtain acceptable substitute materials, or if we elect to change suppliers, an interruption in test processing could occur, we may not be able to deliver patient reports and we may incur higher one-time switching costs. Any such interruption may significantly affect our future revenue, cause us to incur higher costs, and harm our customer relationships and reputation. In addition, in order to mitigate these risks, we maintain inventories of these supplies at higher levels than would be the case if multiple sources of supply were available. If our test volume decreases or we switch suppliers, we may hold excess lab supplies with expiration dates that occur before use which would adversely affect our losses and cash flow position. As we introduce any new test, we may experience supply issues as we ramp test volume. 13 Government Regulations and Industry Guidelines The healthcare industry, and thus our business, is subject to extensive Federal, State, local and foreign regulation. Both Federal and State governmental agencies continue to subject the healthcare industry to intense regulatory scrutiny, including heightened civil and criminal enforcement efforts. We believe that we have structured our business operations and relationships with our customers to comply with applicable legal requirements. However, it is possible that governmental entities or other third parties could interpret these laws differently and assert otherwise. We discuss below the statutes and regulations that are most relevant to our business and most frequently cited in enforcement actions. Regulations over Our Clinical Laboratory The conduct and provision of our services are regulated under the CLIA. CLIA requires us to maintain Federal certification. CLIA imposes requirements relating to test processes, personnel qualifications, facilities and equipment, recordkeeping, quality assurance and participation in proficiency testing. CLIA compliance and certification are also a condition for participation by clinical laboratories in the Medicare Program and for eligibility to bill for services provided to governmental healthcare program beneficiaries. As a condition of CLIA certification, our laboratory is subject to survey and inspection every other year, in addition to being subject to additional random inspections. The biennial survey is typically conducted by a State agency, or, if the laboratory is accredited, a CMS-approved accreditation organization. Potential sanctions for failure to meet these certification, accreditation and licensure requirements include suspension, revocation or limitation of a laboratory’s CLIA certification, accreditation or license, which is necessary to conduct business, cancellation or suspension of the laboratory’s ability to receive Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement, as well as imposition of plans to correct deficiencies, injunctive actions and civil monetary and criminal penalties. The loss or suspension of a CLIA certification, imposition of a fine or other penalties, or future changes in the CLIA law or regulations (or interpretation of the law or regulations) could harm our business. In addition to CLIA requirements, we participate in the accreditation program of the College of American Pathologists (“CAP”). Under CMS requirements, accreditation by CAP is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of CLIA. Failure to maintain CAP accreditation could have a material adverse effect on the sales of our tests and the results of our operations. In addition to CLIA certification, we are required to hold state licenses in certain states. Some state licensing requirements differ from federal regulation and may impose additional or different requirements. CLIA does not preempt state laws that are more stringent. If we were to lose our CLIA certification, CAP Accreditation, or required state licenses for our laboratory, whether as a result of revocation, suspension or limitation, we would no longer be able to provide our services, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Our laboratory is also subject to licensing and regulation under Federal, State and local laws relating to hazard communication and employee right-to-know regulations, and the safety and health of laboratory employees. Additionally, our laboratory is subject to applicable Federal and State laws and regulations and licensing requirements relating to the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous waste and laboratory specimens, including the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation, and the National Fire Protection Agency. The regulations of the United States Department of Transportation, Public Health Service and Postal Service apply to the surface and air transportation of laboratory specimens. Typically, we use outside vendors who are contractually obligated to comply with applicable laws and regulations to dispose of hazardous waste. These vendors are licensed or otherwise qualified to handle and dispose of such waste. 14 In addition to its comprehensive regulation of safety in the workplace, the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration has established extensive requirements relating to workplace safety for healthcare employers whose workers may be exposed to blood-borne pathogens such as HIV and the hepatitis B virus, by preventing or minimizing any exposure through needle stick or similar penetrating injuries. Although we believe that we are currently in compliance in all material respects with such Federal, State and local laws, failure to comply with such laws could subject us to denial of the right to conduct business, fines, criminal penalties and other enforcement actions. Potential U.S. Food and Drug Administration Regulation of Laboratory Developed Tests (“LDTs”) While subject to oversight by CMS through its enforcement of CLIA, the FDA has claimed regulatory authority over all laboratories that produce LDTs, a type of in vitro diagnostic test that is designed, manufactured and used within a single laboratory. The FDA has regulatory responsibility over, among other areas, instruments, test kits, reagents and other devices used in clinical laboratories to perform diagnostic testing in the United States. Historically, the FDA has exercised enforcement discretion over most LDTs. However, in July 2014, the FDA issued two draft guidance documents: “Framework for Regulatory Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests,” which provided an overview of how the FDA would regulate LDTs through a risk-based framework, and “FDA Notification and Medical Device Reporting for Laboratory Developed Tests,” which described how FDA would implement a proposed notification process applicable to LDT manufacturers, including adverse event reporting. On January 13, 2017, the FDA released a discussion paper on LDTs which outlined a substantially-revised approach for regulating LDTs. According to the 2017 discussion paper, previously marketed LDTs would not be expected to comply with most or all FDA oversight requirements (grandfathering), except for adverse event and malfunction reporting. In addition, certain new and significantly modified LDTs would not be expected to comply with pre-market review unless the agency determines certain tests could lead to patient harm. Since many LDTs currently on the market would be grandfathered in, pre-market review of new and significantly modified LDTs could be phased-in over a four-year period, as opposed to the nine years proposed in the Framework for Regulatory Oversight draft guidance. In addition, tests introduced after the effective date, but before their phase-in date, could continue to be offered during pre-market review. The discussion paper notes that FDA will focus on analytical and clinical validity as the basis for marketing authorization. The FDA anticipates laboratories that already conduct proper validation should not be expected to experience new costs for validating their tests to support marketing authorization and laboratories that conduct appropriate evaluations would not have to collect additional data to demonstrate analytical validity for FDA clearance or approval. The evidence of the analytical and clinical validity of all LDTs would be made publicly available. Laboratories developing LDTs would be encouraged to submit prospective change protocols in their pre-market submission that outline specific types of anticipated changes, the procedures that will be followed to implement them and the criteria that will be met prior to implementation. Despite the regulatory approaches proposed over the past decade, FDA continues to exercise enforcement discretion over most LDTs. If FDA ceases to exercise enforcement discretion over LDTs, failure to comply with applicable requirements could result in warning letters, civil monetary penalties, injunctions, criminal prosecution, recall or seizure, operating restrictions, partial suspension or total shutdown of operations, and denial of or challenges to applications for clearance or approval, as well as significant adverse publicity. Regulatory and legislative proposals have been introduced alongside FDA’s regulatory proposals. In March 2017, members of Congress posted a discussion draft of “The Diagnostics Accuracy and Innovation Act” (DAIA). The discussion draft included language that, if enacted, would have established a new regulatory framework for the oversight of in vitro clinical tests (“IVCTs”) which include LDTs. In March 2020, members of Congress introduced “The Verifying Accurate, Leading-edge IVCT Development (VALID) Act.” This bill was re-introduced in substantially similar forms over the years, and, most recently in December 2022, as part of the as part of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (“FDORA”). Under the most recent version of the VALID Act, a risk-based approach would be used to regulate IVCTs while grandfathering many existing IVCTs. Each test will be classified as high-risk, moderate-risk, or low-risk. Pre-market review will be required for high-risk tests. To market a high-risk IVCT, reasonable assurance of analytical and clinical validity for the intended use must be established. Under VALID, a precertification process would be established which will allow a laboratory to establish that the facilities, methods, and controls used in the development of certain IVCTs meet quality system requirements. If pre-certified, IVCTs falling within the scope of a certification order will not be subject to pre-market review. The new regulatory framework will include quality control and post-market reporting requirements. The FDA will have the authority to withdraw from the market IVCTs if it is reasonable possible that such tests will cause serious adverse health consequences (among other criteria). Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can result in enforcement action by the FDA, such as fines, product suspensions, warning letters, recalls, injunctions and other civil and criminal sanctions. 15 While the VALID Act was not ultimately included in the version of FDORA that was incorporated into the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, it may be re-introduced in the future. In the absence of legislative action, some have speculated that the FDA may attempt to regulate LDTs on their own (e.g., via notice and comment rulemaking), which is likely to continue to be met with resistance by certain sections of industry. We cannot predict if this (or any other bill) will be enacted in its current (or any other) form and cannot quantify the effect of such proposals on our business. Healthcare, Fraud, Abuse and Anti-Kickback Laws The Anti-Kickback Statute makes it a felony for a person or entity, including a laboratory, to knowingly and willfully offer, pay, solicit or receive remuneration, directly or indirectly, in order to induce business that is reimbursable under any Federal healthcare program. A violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute may result in imprisonment of up to five years and fines of up to $250,000 for each offense in the case of individuals and $500,000 for each offense in the case of organizations. Convictions under the Anti-Kickback Statute result in mandatory exclusion from federal healthcare programs for a minimum of five years. In addition, HHS has the authority to impose civil assessments and fines and to exclude healthcare providers and others engaged in prohibited activities from Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs. Actions, which violate the Anti-Kickback Statute, also incur liability under the Federal False Claims Act, discussed in more detail below, which prohibits knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment to the U.S. Government. Although the Anti-Kickback Statute applies only to federal healthcare programs, a number of states have passed statutes substantially similar to the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits similar conduct toward all other health plans and third-party payers. Federal and state law enforcement authorities scrutinize arrangements between healthcare providers and potential referral sources to ensure that the arrangements are not designed as a mechanism to induce patient care referrals or induce the purchase or prescribing of particular products or services. The law enforcement authorities, the courts and Congress have also demonstrated a willingness to look behind the formalities of a transaction to determine the underlying purpose of payments between healthcare providers and actual or potential referral sources. Generally, courts have taken a broad interpretation of the scope of the Anti-Kickback Statute, holding that the statute may be violated if merely one purpose of a payment arrangement is to induce referrals or purchases. In addition to the Anti-Kickback Statute, the U.S. enacted the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018, 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 pay any remuneration to induce referrals to, or in exchange for, patients 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. The government has not issued or proposed regulations or other guidance interpreting EKRA. 16 Several other healthcare fraud and abuse laws could have an effect on our business. For example, provisions of the Social Security Act permit Medicare and Medicaid to exclude an entity that charges the federal healthcare programs substantially in excess of its usual charges for its services. The terms “usual charge” and “substantially in excess” are ambiguous and subject to varying interpretations. Further, the Federal False Claims Act, discussed in more detail below, prohibits a person from knowingly submitting a claim, making a false record or statement in order to secure payment or retaining an overpayment by the federal government. In addition to actions initiated by the government itself, the statute authorizes actions to be brought on behalf of the federal government by a private party having knowledge of the alleged fraud. Because the complaint is initially filed under seal, the action may be pending for some time before the defendant is even aware of the action. If the government is ultimately successful in obtaining redress in the matter or if the plaintiff succeeds in obtaining redress without the government’s involvement, then the plaintiff will receive a percentage of the recovery. Penalties under the federal False Claims Act can include up to three times the damages sustained by the federal program and up to about $12,000 and $26,000 per claim (these per-claim penalties are adjusted for inflation from time to time). Further, numerous states have enacted state false claims acts that apply to state government programs. Finally, the Social Security Act includes its own provisions that prohibit the filing of false claims or submitting false statements in order to obtain payment. Violation of these provisions may result in fines, imprisonment or both, and possible exclusion from Medicare or Medicaid programs. We are also subject to the federal physician self-referral prohibitions, commonly known as the Stark Law, and state equivalents. These restrictions generally prohibit us from billing a patient or Medicare for any diagnostic services when the physician ordering the service, or any member of such physician’s immediate family, has an investment interest in or compensation arrangement with us, unless the arrangement meets an exception to the prohibition. The government has also claimed in FCA litigation that the Stark Law applies to Medicaid claims. Some states have also enacted state Stark Law equivalents that can apply to that state’s Medicaid plan and/or commercial payors. Persons or entities found to violate the Stark Law are required to refund any payments received pursuant to a referral prohibited by these laws to the patient, or the Medicare program, as applicable. Sanctions for a violation of the Stark Law include the following: ● denial of payment for the services provided in violation of the prohibition; ● refunds of amounts collected by an entity in violation of the Stark Law; ● a civil penalty of up to $27,750 for each service arising out of the prohibited referral; ● possible exclusion from federal healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid; and ● a civil penalty of up to $185,009 against parties that enter into a scheme to circumvent the Stark Law’s prohibition. These penalty amounts are adjusted each year for inflation. The Stark Law prohibitions apply regardless of the reasons for the financial relationship and the referral. No finding of intent to violate the Stark Law is required for a violation. In addition, violations of the Stark Law may also serve as the basis for liability under the Federal False Claims Act. Additionally, the Federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law 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. We do retain healthcare practitioners as key opinion leaders providing consultation in various aspects of the business. These arrangements as any arrangement that includes compensation to a healthcare provider may trigger Federal or State anti-kickback and Stark Law liability. Our arrangements with healthcare providers are designed to meet available safe harbors and exceptions provided in the anti-kickback laws and Stark laws, respectively. There is no guarantee that the government will find that these arrangements are designed properly or that they do not trigger liability. Under existing laws, all arrangements must have a legitimate purpose and compensation must be fair market value. These terms require some subjective analysis and there is limited available case law or guidance for the application of these laws to the CLIA Laboratory industry. 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 not have issue with the relationships between the laboratories and the healthcare providers. 17 HIPAA, Fraud and Privacy Regulations The Federal government’s efforts to combat fraud in the healthcare setting were consolidated and strengthened under Public Law 104-191, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA. HIPAA aimed to combat fraud committed against all health plans, both public and private by, among other things creating two new Federal offenses: healthcare fraud (18 U.S. Code § 1347) and false statements relating to healthcare matters (18 U.S. Code § 1035). These provisions prohibit: (1) the knowing and willful execution, or attempted execution, of a scheme or artifice (a) to defraud any healthcare benefit program (including private payers), or (b) to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any healthcare benefit program, in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items, or services; and (2) the knowing and willful (a) falsification, concealment or covering up of a material fact by any trick, scheme or device, or (b) making of any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation, or making or using any materially false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. A violation of these provisions is a felony and may result in fines, imprisonment and/or exclusion from government-sponsored programs. HIPAA, along with the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) and the various regulations promulgated thereunder, also establish uniform standards governing the conduct of certain electronic healthcare transactions and the security and privacy of individually identifiable health information maintained or transmitted by certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses, which are referred to as “covered entities,” as well as individuals or entities to the extent they perform health care operations functions as a “business associate” for or on behalf of a covered entity. The regulations promulgated under HIPAA governing covered entities and business associates include the following subparts: “Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information”, which establishes conditions for the permissible use and disclosure of certain individually identifiable health information by covered entities and establishes certain rights of individuals who are the subject of such information (45 C.F.R. §§ 164.500, et seq.); “Administrative Requirements”, which establishes electronic standards for common healthcare transactions, such as claims information, plan eligibility, payment information and the use of electronic signatures (45 C.F.R. §§ 162.100, et seq.); “Security Standards for the Protection of Electronic Protected Health Information”, which requires covered entities and their business associates to implement and maintain certain security measures to safeguard certain electronic health information (45 C.F.R. §§ 164.302, et seq.); and “Breach Notification”, which requires covered entities and their business associates to provide certain notifications to affected individuals, HHS and relevant media outlets following a breach of unsecured protected health information (PHI) (45 C.F.R. §§ 164.400, et seq.). As a covered entity, and also in our capacity as a business associate to certain of our customers, we are subject to these standards. We may also be liable for violations of HIPAA by any individual or entity, which may include a business associate that is acting as our agent under the federal common law of agency. While the government intended this legislation to reduce administrative expenses and burdens for the healthcare industry, our compliance with certain provisions of these standards entails significant costs for us and requires us to follow specific policies and procedures when we use and disclose individually identifiable health information. If we are found to be in violation of HIPAA, HITECH, or their respective implementing regulations, we may be subject to potentially significant penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages and fines, and may incur damage to our reputation. Such enforcement actions could have an adverse effect on our business. In addition to Federal regulations issued under HIPAA and HITECH, many States and foreign jurisdictions have enacted privacy and security statutes or regulations that, in some cases, are more stringent than those issued under HIPAA. In those cases, it may be necessary to modify our planned operations and procedures to comply with the more stringent laws as HIPAA and HITECH do not supersede State laws to the extent such State laws are broader in scope, impose more stringent requirements for individually identifiable health information, or give individuals more rights with respect to their individually identifiable health information. If we fail to comply with applicable State or foreign laws, rules, or regulations, we could be subject to additional sanctions or other liabilities under those laws, rules, and regulations. 18 Federal and State Consumer Protection Laws The Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, is an independent U.S. law enforcement agency charged with protecting consumers and enhancing competition across broad sectors of the economy. In 2022, the FTC has said that it will be evaluating new data privacy regulations, which, if adopted, could impact our operations. The FTC’s authority with respect to data privacy and security comes from Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC uses its broad grant of authority to regulate data privacy and security, using its powers to investigate and bring lawsuits. Where appropriate, the FTC can seek a variety of remedies, such as but not limited to requiring the implementation of comprehensive privacy and security programs, biennial assessments by independent experts, monetary redress to consumers, and provision of robust notice and choice mechanisms to consumers. In addition to the FTC Act, many U.S. states have unfair and deceptive acts and practices statutes, known as UDAP statutes, that are substantively similar to the FTC Act and have been applied in the privacy and data security context. These UDAP statutes vary in substance and strength from state to state. Many have broad prohibitions against unfair and deceptive acts and practices. These statutes generally allow for private rights of action, and are enforced by the states’ Attorneys General. California, Virginia, and Colorado have adopted comprehensive consumer privacy laws that are in effect or will take effect within the next 12 to 18 months, and regulate how certain for-profit businesses collect, use, and disclose the personal information of consumers who reside in those respective states. Among other things, these laws confer to their consumers the right to: receive notice of information collection and use practices; access, delete, correct, or transfer personal information and opt out of the “sale” of their personal information. These laws also require companies to adopt reasonable measures to safeguard the personal information that we collect and regulate categories of “sensitive” data such as information associated with minors, citizenship, and other personal data for which these state laws have designated special protection. These laws do not, however, apply to personal information that constitutes PHI under HIPAA, HIPAA-regulated entities to the extent that the entity maintains patient information in the same manner as PHI, and de-identified data as defined under HIPAA. As a result, we do not or likely will not have compliance obligations with respect to most testing and patient information we collect and process. However, we are required to comply with these consumer privacy laws insofar as we collect other categories of California, Virginia and Colorado consumers’ personal information. These laws are generally enforced by the respective state Attorney General. California’s law also includes a private right of action for certain data breaches. Dozens of other states in the United States are currently considering similar, consumer data privacy laws, which could impact our operations if enacted. Healthcare Reform The United States and many foreign jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare system. The United States government, state legislatures and foreign governments also have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid healthcare costs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs. In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA (also known as the Affordable Care Act), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, a sweeping law intended to broaden access to health insurance and coverage for patients, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry, coordinate and promote research on comparative clinical effectiveness of different technologies and procedures, and impose additional health policy reforms. 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 pricing and implemented changes which significantly affect the pharmaceutical, medical device and clinical laboratory industries. There have been legislative and administrative actions to make changes to PPACA, including repeal and replacement of certain provisions. 19 The PPACA has also been subject to challenges in the courts; however, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law in 2021. Further changes to the PPACA remain possible, although the Biden Administration has signaled that it plans to build on the Affordable Care Act and expand the number of people who are eligible for subsidies under it. President Biden has used executive orders to undo changes to the PPACA made by the Trump administration and indicated he would 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. We expect that additional federal, state and foreign healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in limited coverage and reimbursement and reduced demand for our products, once approved, or additional pricing pressures. Third Party Coverage and Reimbursement for our Clinical Services Our customers’ bills are paid by many different payer groups. The majority of reimbursement dollars for traditional laboratory services are provided by traditional commercial insurance products, most notably preferred provider organizations, or PPOs, and other managed care plans, as well as government healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. PPOs, HMOs and other managed care plans typically contract with a limited number of laboratories and then designate the laboratory or laboratories to be used for tests ordered by participating physicians. We are currently an out-of-network provider with most payers, which means we do not have a contract with payers to pay a specific rate for our tests. We did previously announce a new national agreement with Aetna through which the Company is now an in-network provider for Aetna’s members. We are subject to applicable state laws regarding who should be billed, how they should be billed, how business should be conducted, and how patient obligations regarding cost sharing should be handled. In addition, if we become an “in-network” provider for certain payers in the future, we will also be subject to the terms of contracts (which could include reduced reimbursement rates) and may be subject to discipline, breach of contract actions, non-renewal or other contractually provided remedies for non-compliance with the contract’s requirements and/or applicable laws. We generally bill third-party payers and individual patients for testing services on a test-by-test basis. Third-party payers include Medicare, private insurance companies, institutional direct clients and Medicaid, each of which has different billing requirements. Medicare reimbursement programs are complex and often ambiguous, and are continuously being evaluated and modified by CMS. Our ability to receive timely reimbursements from third-party payers is dependent on our ability to submit accurate and complete billing statements, and/or correct and complete missing and incorrect billing information. Missing and incorrect information on reimbursement submissions slows down the billing process and increases the aging of accounts receivable. We must bill Medicare directly for tests performed for Medicare patients and must accept Medicare’s fee schedule for the covered tests as payment in full. State Medicaid programs are generally prohibited from paying more than the Medicare fee schedule. Through February 2021, we were contracted with XIFIN, Inc. (“XIFIN”), a healthcare billing services management company, to work with our in-house staff and help manage our third-party billing. In early March 2021, we expanded our relationship with XIFIN to deploy XIFIN’s revenue cycle management solution enterprise-wide to support all of our diagnostics testing services. During January 2022, the Company became aware that CMS issued a new billing policy whereby CMS would no longer reimburse for the use of the Company’s ThyGeNEXT ® and ThyraMIR ® tests when billed together by the same provider/supplier for the same beneficiary on the same date of service. In February 2022, the Company announced that this billing policy determination by CMS had been changed retroactively to January 1, 2022. As a result, the Company will continue billing for both tests according to its LCD as originally set by Novitas. Effective January 1, 2023, the gapfill price for ThyGeNEXT ® was set at $1,266.07. 20 Some billing arrangements require us to bill multiple payers, and there are several other factors that complicate billing (e.g., disparity in coverage and information requirements among various payers; and incomplete or inaccurate billing information provided by ordering physicians). Since 2018 several private payers implemented pre-authorization requirements for molecular and genetic testing, including Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield and United Healthcare, as well as various lab benefit companies such as American Imaging Management, Inc., or AIM, and Beacon Lab Benefits Solutions, or Beacon. In addition, more commercial payers are contracting with and delegating risk for lab services costs to lab benefits management companies (e.g. eviCore healthcare, AIM, and Beacon). This requires us to go through their technology assessment process to secure coverage and obtain a contract as an in-network lab provider for our services. We incur additional costs as a result of our participation in Medicare and Medicaid programs because diagnostic testing services are subject to complex, stringent and frequently ambiguous federal and state laws and regulations, including those relating to coverage, billing and reimbursement. Additionally, auditing for compliance with applicable laws and regulations as well as internal compliance policies and procedures adds further cost and complexity to the billing process. Further, our billing systems require significant technology investment and, as a result of marketplace demands, we need to continually invest in our billing systems. Changes in laws and regulations could further complicate our billing and increase our billing expense. CMS establishes procedures and continuously evaluates and implements changes to the reimbursement process and requirements for coverage. As an integral part of our billing compliance program, we investigate reported failures or suspected failures to comply with federal and state healthcare reimbursement requirements. Any Medicare or Medicaid overpayments are reimbursed by us. As a result of these efforts, we have periodically identified and reported overpayments, reimbursed the payers for overpayments and taken appropriate corrective action. Historically, due to the nature of our business, we have performed requested testing and have reported test results regardless of collectability or form of reimbursement. We submit claims for reimbursement on a best efforts basis including the use of a third-party revenue cycle management firm. If at times the billing information is incorrect or incomplete, we subsequently attempt to contact the healthcare provider or patient to obtain any missing information and to rectify incorrect billing information. Missing or incorrect information on requisitions complicates and slows down the billing process and may also impact revenue recognition. The increased use of electronic ordering reduces the incidence of missing or incorrect information, and we are seeking to electronically integrate with more and more payers and clients. There are a number of factors that influence coverage and reimbursement for molecular diagnostic tests. In the United States, the American Medical Association assigns specific CPT codes, which are necessary for reimbursement of molecular diagnostic tests. Once the CPT code is established, CMS establishes reimbursement payment levels and coverage rules under Medicare, and private payers establish rates and coverage rules independently. However, the availability of a CPT code is not a guarantee of coverage or adequate reimbursement levels, and the revenues generated from our tests will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payers provide coverage and establish adequate reimbursement levels. United States and other government regulations governing coverage and reimbursement for molecular diagnostic testing may affect, directly or indirectly, the design of our tests and the potential market for their use. The availability of third-party reimbursement for our tests and services may be limited or uncertain. Third-party payers may deny coverage if they determine that the tests or service has not received appropriate FDA or other government regulatory clearances, is not used in accordance with cost-effective treatment methods as determined by the payer, or is deemed by the third-party payer to be experimental, unnecessary or inappropriate. Furthermore, third-party payers, including Federal and State healthcare programs, government authorities, private managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations, frequently challenge the prices, medical necessity, and cost-effectiveness of healthcare products and services, including laboratory tests. Such payers may limit coverage of our tests to specific, limited circumstances, may not provide coverage at all, or may not provide adequate reimbursement rates, if covered. Further, one payer’s determination to provide coverage does not assure that other payers will also provide coverage for the test. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to maintain our revenue and growth. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Government payers, such as Medicare and Medicaid, have taken steps and are expected to continue to take steps to control the cost, utilization and delivery of healthcare services, including clinical test services. For example, Medicare has adopted policies under which it does not pay for many commonly ordered clinical tests unless the ordering physician has provided an appropriate diagnosis code supporting the medical necessity of the test. Physicians are required by law to provide diagnostic information when they order clinical tests for Medicare and Medicaid patients. 21 Currently, Medicare does not require the beneficiary to pay a co-payment for diagnostic information services reimbursed under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule. Certain Medicaid programs require Medicaid recipients to pay co-payment amounts for diagnostic information services. The Medicare Part B program contains fee schedule payment methodologies for clinical testing services performed for covered patients, including a national ceiling on the amount that carriers could pay under their local Medicare clinical testing fee schedules. Historically, the Medicare Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule, or CLFS, has been subject to local variations in pricing. In April 2014, President Obama signed the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014, or PAMA, which included a substantial new payment system for clinical laboratory tests under the CLFS. Under PAMA, CLFS rates are based upon the weighted median of private payor rates reported for each type of laboratory test. PAMA requires laboratories that receive a majority of their Medicare revenue from payments made under the CLFS and the Physician Fee Schedule, and at least $12,500 in CLFS revenue during the six month data collection period to report private payor data collected from such 6-month period (January 1 through June 30 in the applicable year) to CMS between January 1 through March 31 of the following year. CMS posted the first new Medicare CLFS rates (based on weighted median private payer rates) in November 2017 and the new rates became effective on January 1, 2018. CMS published final rules implementing these changes in 2016 and 2018. The result of the PAMA calculations was an increase in our reimbursement rate for ThyGenX ® of approximately 40% for our Medicare volume. However, on July 26, 2018, we received a coding update from CMS, which changed the billable procedure code (CPT) for ThyGeNEXT ® . This code change resulted in a reduction of the fee schedule for payments to us. We have recently presented clinical data to CMS adding additional markers to the panel that we run that increase our gene families above 50. If approved, reimbursement for the new panel will exceed the previously approved rate. There can be no assurances that our request will be successful and that the rate will be escalated. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, as amended by the Protecting Medicare and American Farmers from Sequester Cuts Act, revised payment reductions and the data reporting schedule for approved Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests (“CDLTs”) that are not ADLTs. Under these laws, the next data reporting period is January 1, 2023 through March 31, 2023, 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 2023 through 2025. Payments will not be reduced for 2021 or 2022 for CDLTs. Under the revised Medicare Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule, reimbursement for clinical laboratory testing was reduced for most tests in 2018, 2019, and 2020. PAMA calls for further revisions of the Medicare Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule for years after 2021, based on future surveys of market rates. Penalties for violations of laws relating to billing government healthcare programs and for violations of federal and state fraud and abuse laws include: (1) exclusion from participation in Medicare/Medicaid programs; (2) asset forfeitures; (3) civil and criminal fines and penalties; and (4) the loss of various licenses, certificates and authorizations necessary to operate our business. Civil monetary penalties for a wide range of violations may be assessed on a per violation basis. A parallel civil remedy under the federal False Claims Act provides for penalties on a per violation basis, plus damages of up to three times the amount claimed. Historically, most Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries were covered under the traditional Medicare and Medicaid programs administered by the federal government. Reimbursement from traditional Medicare and Medicaid programs represented approximately 45% of our consolidated net revenues during 2022. Over the last several years, the federal government has continued to expand its contracts with private health insurance plans for Medicare beneficiaries and has encouraged such beneficiaries to switch from the traditional programs to the private programs, called “Medicare Advantage” programs. There has been growth of health insurance providers offering Medicare Advantage programs and of beneficiary enrollment in these programs. Commercial health plans that might not cover one or all of our tests for their commercially insured members are required to follow the Novitas LCD coverage policy for their Medicare Advantage members. To the extent we maintain the LCD coverage policies with Novitas for our products, any shift of members from traditional Medicare to Medicare Advantage plans doesn’t represent a risk of lost revenue. In recent years, in an effort to control costs, states also have mandated that Medicaid beneficiaries enroll in private managed care arrangements. 22 The current position of our laboratory is that it does not meet the definition of an “Applicable Manufacturer” under the “Sunshine Act” section of PPACA and therefore is not subject to the disclosure or tax requirements contained in PPACA. However, as new regulations are implemented and diagnostic tests reclassified, this may change and the laboratory business may be subject to PPACA as are other companies. There is no guarantee that our interpretation of the law is now or will be in the future consistent with government guidance and interpretation. In December 2019, our Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) issued a new draft local coverage determination (LCD) for our ThyGeNEXT ® test, representing an increase of approximately $2,400 per assay over previous reimbursement coverage. This increase in reimbursement rates reflects the expansion of the ThyGeNEXT ® panel to aid in identifying the appropriate patients for surgery. Final approval is expected during the first half of 2020. Additionally, in February 2020, the CMS modified the reimbursement for ThyraMIR ® retroactively to January 1, 2020. This determination increases the Medicare reimbursement for ThyraMIR ® from approximately $1,800 to $3,000 reflecting a re-evaluation of the technical and clinical performance of the test relative to other molecular tests in the market and their respective prices. 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 ThyraMIR ® 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 ThyraMIR ® (0018U) tests has been retroactively reversed to January 1, 2022. CMS is currently reimbursing the Company for one of its two thyroid tests, and has agreed to retroactively reimburse for the second test once they have completed their internal administrative adjustments. We have been notified by CMS/NCCI that processing of claims for dates of service after January 1, 2022 will 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. Reporting Segments We operate under one segment which is the business of developing and selling diagnostic clinical services. Employees As of February 28, 2023, we had approximately 94 full time employees and 94 total employees. We are not party to a collective bargaining agreement with any labor union. Corporate Information We were originally incorporated in New Jersey in 1986 and began commercial operations as PDI, Inc., a contract sales organization or CSO in 1987. In connection with PDI, Inc.’s initial public offering, it reincorporated in Delaware in 1998. In 2015 the CSO business and assets were sold, and we operated our molecular diagnostics business as Interpace Diagnostics Group, Inc. (IDXG). We conduct our business through our wholly-owned subsidiaries, Interpace Diagnostics, LLC, which was formed in Delaware in 2013 and Interpace Diagnostics Corporation (formerly known as RedPath Integrated Pathology, Inc.), which was formed in Delaware in 2007, On November 12, 2019, we changed the name of Interpace Diagnostics Group, Inc. to Interpace Biosciences, Inc. Our executive offices are located at Morris Corporate Center 1, Building C, 300 Interpace Parkway, Parsippany, New Jersey 07054. Our telephone number is (855) 776-6419. 23 Business Development Series B Investment by 1315 Capital and Ampersand On January 10, 2020, we entered into a Securities Purchase and Exchange Agreement (the “Securities Purchase and Exchange Agreement”) with 1315 Capital II, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“1315 Capital”), and Ampersand (together with 1315 Capital, the “Investors”) pursuant to which we sold to the Investors, in a private placement pursuant to Regulation D and Section 4(a)(2) under the Securities Act, an aggregate of $20,000,000 in Series B Preferred Stock, at an issuance price per share of $1,000. Pursuant to the Securities Purchase and Exchange Agreement, 1315 Capital purchased 19,000 shares of Series B Preferred Stock at an aggregate purchase price of $19,000,000 and Ampersand purchased 1,000 shares of Series B Preferred Stock at an aggregate purchase price of $1,000,000. In addition, we exchanged $27,000,000 of the Company’s existing Series A Preferred Stock held by Ampersand, represented by 270 shares of Series A Preferred Stock, which represented all of the Company’s issued and outstanding Series A Preferred Stock, for 27,000 newly created shares of Series B Preferred Stock (such shares of Series B Preferred Stock, the “Exchange Shares” and such transaction, the “Exchange”). Following the Exchange, no shares of Series A Preferred Stock remain designated, authorized, issued or outstanding. Under the terms of the Securities Purchase and Exchange Agreement, Ampersand also agreed to waive all dividends and weighted-average anti-dilution adjustments accrued to date on the Series A Preferred Stock. For so long as each of Ampersand and 1315 Capital holds at least sixty percent (60%) of the Series B Preferred Stock issued to it on January 15, 2020, such Investor will be entitled to elect two directors to the Board, provided that one of the directors qualifies as an “independent director” under Rule 5605(a)(2) of the listing rules of the Nasdaq Stock Market (or any successor rule or similar rule promulgated by another exchange on which the Company’s securities are then listed or designated) (“Independent Director”). However, if at any time such Investor holds less than sixty percent (60%), but at least forty percent (40%), of the Series B Preferred Stock issued to them on January 15, 2020, such Investor would only be entitled to elect one director to the Board. Any director elected pursuant to the terms of the Certificate of Designation may be removed without cause by, and only by, the affirmative vote of the holders of Series B Preferred Stock. A vacancy in any directorship filled by the holders of Series B Preferred Stock may be filled only by vote or written consent in lieu of a meeting of such holders of Series B Preferred Stock or by any remaining director or directors elected by such holders of Series B Preferred Stock. The Certificate of Designation of Preferences, Rights and Limitations of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Certificate of Designation”) provides that each share of Series B Preferred Stock is convertible, at any time and from time to time, at the option of the holder into a number of shares of our common stock equal to dividing the amount equal to the greater of the stated value of $1,000 of such Series B Preferred Stock, plus any dividends declared but unpaid thereon, or such amount per share as would have been payable had each such share been converted into our common stock immediately prior to a liquidation, by six dollars ($6.00) (subject to adjustment in the event of any stock dividend, stock split, combination, or other similar recapitalization affecting such shares). The aggregate number of shares of our common stock that may be issued through conversion of the currently outstanding Series B Preferred Stock is 7,833,334 shares (subject to appropriate adjustment in the event of any stock dividend, stock split, combination or other similar recapitalization affecting such shares). On any matter presented to our stockholders for their action or consideration at any meeting of stockholders of the Company (or by written consent of stockholders in lieu of meeting), each holder of outstanding shares of Series B Preferred Stock will be entitled to cast the number of votes equal to the number of whole shares of our common stock into which the shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by such holder are convertible as of the record date for determining stockholders entitled to vote on such matter. Except as provided by law or by the Certificate of Designation, holders of Series B Preferred Stock will vote together with the holders of common stock as a single class and on an as-converted to common stock basis. 24 The Series B Preferred Stock entitles the holders thereof to certain protective provisions. In particular, for so long as any shares of Series B Preferred Stock are outstanding, the written consent of the holders of at least seventy five percent (75%) of the then outstanding shares of Series B Preferred Stock (voting as a single class) is required for us to amend, waive, alter or repeal the preferences, rights, privileges or powers of the holders of the Series B Preferred Stock, amend, alter or repeal any provision of the Certificate of Designation in a manner adverse to the holders of the Series B Preferred Stock, authorize, create or issue any equity securities senior to or pari passu with the Series B Preferred Stock, or increase or decrease the number of directors constituting the Board. Moreover, for so long as thirty percent (30%) of the Series B Preferred Stock outstanding as of January 15, 2020 remains outstanding (subject to appropriate adjustment in the event of any stock dividend, stock split, combination or other similar recapitalization affecting such shares, including the Reverse Stock Split effected in January 2020), the written consent of the holders representing at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the of the outstanding shares of Series B Preferred Stock (voting as a single class) is required for us to: (A) authorize, create or issue any debt securities for borrowed money or funded debt (1) pursuant to which we issue shares, warrants or any other convertible security, or (2) in excess of $4,500,000 initially, with such amount to be increased in connection with an aggregate consolidated revenue milestone, but excluding certain specified permitted transactions; (B) merge with or acquire all or substantially all of the assets of one or more other companies or entities with a value in excess of $20,000,000, to be increased in connection with an aggregate consolidated revenue milestone; (C) materially change our business; (D) consummate any Liquidation (as defined in the Certificate of Designation); (E) transfer material intellectual property rights other than in the ordinary course of business; (F) declare or pay any cash dividend or make any cash distribution on any of our equity interests other than the Series B Preferred Stock; (G) repurchase or redeem any shares of our capital stock, except for the redemption of the Series B Preferred Stock pursuant to the terms of the Certificate of Designation, or repurchases of our common stock under agreements previously approved by the Board with employees, consultants, advisors or others who performed services for us in connection with the cessation of such employment or service; (H) incur any additional individual debt, indebtedness for borrowed money or other additional liabilities pursuant to we issue shares, warrants or any other convertible security, or incur any individual debt, indebtedness for borrowed money or other liabilities pursuant to which we do not issue shares, warrants or any other convertible security exceeding, in each case, $4,500,000 initially, with such amount to be increased in connection with an aggregate consolidated revenue milestone, but excluding certain specified permitted transactions; (I) change any of our accounting methods, except for those changes required by GAAP or applicable regulatory agencies or authorities; or (J) conduct a public offering of common stock registered with the SEC, including any at-the-market offering of our common stock. The holders of our Series B Preferred Stock have preferential rights with respect to distributions upon a liquidation or sale of the Company, including certain business combinations or sales of assets deemed to be a liquidation. Accordingly, no distributions upon liquidation may be made to the holders of common stock until the holders of the Series B Preferred Stock have been paid their liquidation preference. As a result, it is possible that, on a liquidation event (including a sale of the Company) and depending on the price thereof, all amounts available for the holders of equity of the Company would be paid to the holders of Series B Preferred Stock, and that the holders of common stock would not receive any payment. During April 2020, the Company applied for various federal stimulus loans, grants and advances made available under Title 1 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, including a loan request under the Small Business Administration (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). In connection with the Company’s application for the PPP loan, both Ampersand and 1315 Capital consented to, and agreed to vote their shares of Series B Preferred Stock in favor of any “Fundamental Action” taken by the Company as determined by the Company’s Board of Directors. “Fundamental Actions” include the Company’s ability to a) authorize, create or issue any debt securities for borrowed money or funded debt; b) merge with or acquire all or substantially all of the assets of one or more other companies or entities with a value in excess of $20 million; c) transfer, by sale, exclusive license or otherwise, material intellectual property rights of the Company or any of its direct or indirect subsidiaries, other than those accomplished in the ordinary course of business; d) declare or pay any cash dividend or make any cash distribution on any equity interests of the Company other than the Series B Shares; e) incur any additional individual debt, indebtedness for borrowed money or other additional liabilities; and f) change any accounting methods or practices of the Company, except for those changes required by GAAP or applicable regulatory agencies or authorities. Subsequently, the Company and Ampersand agreed that Ampersand no longer was required to vote its shares of Series B Preferred Stock in favor of any “Fundamental Action” taken by the Company as determined by the Company’s Board of Directors. Available Information We maintain an internet website at www.interpace.com. Our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports are available free of charge through the “Investor Relations” portion of our website, as soon as reasonably practicable after they are filed with the SEC. The content contained in, or that can be accessed through, our website is not incorporated into this Form 10-K. 25