INTERPACE BIOSCIENCES, INC. 10-K

ITEM 1. BUSINESS Company Overview We are a company that provides esoteric molecular diagnostic testing and pathology services to aid physicians in their evaluation of cancer risk in patients with indeterminate biopsies and a perceived risk of cancer from clinical features. We develop and commercialize genomic tests that can personalize medicine to help improve patient diagnosis and management. Due to the decision of CMS to cease reimbursement coverage of our PancraGEN ® test for assessing the risk of pancreatic cyst progression to cancer on April 24, 2025 which resulted in specimens for first-line fluid chemistry and PancraGEN ® testing not being accepted by the Company after May 2, 2025, we are currently concentrating our efforts on our molecular diagnostic tests for thyroid cancer, ThyGeNEXT ® and ThyraMIR ® v2. Customer Category Types of Customers Nature of Services Clinical services ● Hospitals ● Physicians ● Cancer Centers ● Clinics ● Commercial laboratories ● Pathology groups Clinical services that help guide patient management decisions by providing information on the diagnosis and prognosis of indeterminate specimens. Guidance on genetic marker-related pharmaceutical treatment options, when available, is also provided. Our clinical services’ customers consist primarily of physicians, hospitals, cancer centers, commercial laboratories, pathology groups and clinics. Our largest customer in 2025 for ThyGeNEXT ® and ThyraMIR ® v2 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. Market Overview Global Molecular Diagnostic Market The global esoteric molecular diagnostics market, valued at $29.6 billion (USD) in 2025, is projected to grow to $32.6 billion (USD) in 2026 and to $75.9 billion (USD) by 2034, exhibiting a Compound Annual Growth rate, or CAGR, of 11.12% during the forecast period, according to Fortune Business Insights™ (Report ID: FBI108868, Updated January, 2026). 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. 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; and expanding our business by developing and promoting synergistic products in our markets. United States Clinical Oncology Market Despite many advances in the treatment of cancer, it remains one of the greatest areas of unmet medical need. The American Cancer Society annually estimates new cancer cases and deaths within the United States (US). In 2026, there will be an estimated 2.1 million new cancer cases and more than 626,000 cancer deaths, corresponding to about 1,700 deaths per day. In the United States, cancer remains one of the most significant causes of mortality, ranking second overall and representing the primary cause of death for individuals under the age of 85. Over the course of a lifetime, roughly one in three men and one in three women will be diagnosed with an invasive cancer. While cancer continues to be diagnosed most frequently in adults aged 65 and older, a growing share of cases now occurs in younger populations. Nearly three in ten diagnoses arise in individuals between 50 and 64 years of age, and approximately one in eight occur in people younger than 50. The incidence, deaths and economic loss caused by cancer are staggering. Cancer-attributed medical care costs in the US are substantial and projected to increase dramatically by 2030 to an estimated $246 billion (USD). The following table adapted from the American Cancer Society ( Cancer Facts & Figures 2026) shows estimated new cases and deaths in 2026 in the United States for selected major cancer types: Cancer Type Estimated New Cases Estimated Deaths Bladder 84,530 17,870 Breast 324,580 42,670 Colon and Rectal (Combined) 158,850 55,230 Kidney (and Renal Pelvis) 80,450 15,160 Leukemia (All Type) 67,790 23,910 Liver and Intrahepatic Bile Duct 42,340 30,980 Lung (Including Bronchus) 229,410 124,990 Melanoma 112,000 8,510 Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma 79,320 19.970 Pancreatic 67,530 52,740 Prostate 333,830 36,320 Thyroid 45,240 2,320 Source: American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2026. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2026. 4 Our Strategy Our primary goal is to drive exceptional growth while becoming a leader in providing high-quality and dependable personalized medicine. Our strategy is to grow our business organically and by selectively partnering—which could potentially include licensing, acquisitions or mergers, to generate positive returns for our shareholders. We expect to continue to further develop our existing endocrine assays and 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. Given the loss of CMS reimbursement for PancraGEN ® which we discontinued in May 2025, we are adapting our strategy to mitigate the impact and continue to drive growth. The key tactics to achieve our goals include: ● Expanding awareness and use of our existing commercial products, ThyGeNEXT ® and ThyraMIR ® v2 through omnichannel marketing programs; ● 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: ○ Continuing support of an internal managed care team; ○ Utilizing Key Opinion Leaders to educate on the validity and utility of our testing services; and ○ Establishing payer relationships and in-network contracts serving our diagnostic customers. ● Expanding our commercial sales staff rationally, while supporting our products with high quality data and studies; ● Exploring partnering or other opportunities to acquire new technologies and products; and ● Expanding understanding and utilization of our bioinformatics data to improve our assays and elevate scientific understanding of the genetic drivers of cancer progression and aggressiveness. Additionally, we will focus on diversifying our product portfolio and exploring new revenue streams. This includes investing in research and development to bring innovative diagnostic solutions to market and strengthening our relationships with commercial payers to ensure broader coverage for our tests. Our Service Offerings Our business is based on the increasing clinician demand for molecular- and biomarker-based characterization of cancers to help inform patient management decisions. Molecular-based testing often produces higher value and more accurate cancer diagnostic information than traditional clinical assessments and non-genetic diagnostic methods. Our proprietary and unique disease-focused 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. 5 We aim to provide physicians and patients with diagnostic options for detecting genomic and other molecular alterations that are associated with endocrine and potentially other cancers. Our clinical services’ customers consist primarily of physicians, hospitals and clinics. Clinical services Our clinical services business commercializes clinically useful molecular diagnostic tests and molecular pathology services. We commercialize esoteric diagnostic tests that are principally focused on risk-stratification of cancer to help personalize medicine and improve patient diagnosis and management. Our tests and services provide pathological, mutational and epigenetic analysis of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsies derived from thyroid nodules, with the goal of better informing surgery or surveillance treatment decisions in patients suspected of thyroid cancer. 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 a consideration of 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 is accredited by the 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 endocrine cancer. Our customers consist primarily of physicians, hospitals, and clinics. We currently have two commercialized molecular diagnostic tests in the marketplace: ThyGeNEXT ® , an oncogenic mutation panel that helps “rule-in” and “rule-out” malignancy in thyroid nodules and ThyraMIR ® v2, used in combination with ThyGeNEXT ® , to help in further refining the malignancy risk of indeterminate thyroid nodules utilizing a proprietary microRNA gene expression classifier. 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. The ThyGeNEXT ® assay evaluates the most common mutations associated with thyroid cancer. The results of this mutational analysis are then combined with the results of our unique microRNA-based endocrine cancer diagnostic test, ThyraMIR ® v2. This assay measures the expression of eleven distinct microRNAs by both an algorithmic and pairwise expression analysis to further refine malignancy risk. The microRNA analysis can also inform malignancy risk in the absence of an identified mutation within the mutational analysis. The combined analysis provided by the ThyGeNEXT ® and ThyraMIR ® v2 testing platform, provides very high-performance metrics and narrow malignancy risk ranges to help guide patient management decision-making. We estimate the total market for our endocrine (thyroid) cancer assays is approximately $300 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) biopsies 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 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. 6 The Endocrine Cancer Products franchise for indeterminant thyroid nodules, ThyGeNEXT ® + ThyraMIR ® v2, continues to demonstrate its strength in providing a solid foundation for continued growth, profitability, and Company expansion into other product offerings. CLIA Certified and CAP Accredited Laboratory Our testing is performed in our state-of-the-art CLIA certified and 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. Sales and Marketing Our sales and marketing efforts consist of both direct and indirect sales channels with efforts focused predominantly in the United States. We also have collaborative arrangements with other laboratory services companies. Our commercialization efforts for our clinical services are focused on endocrine (thyroid) cancer. Communication of our marketing messages and value propositions is accomplished through multiple channels, including a field-based commercial sales team of approximately 30 representatives and managers. In addition, we employ 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 and by 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 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, and digital communications. 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 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 and some have greater brand recognition. 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. 7 We also compete with physicians and the medical community who use traditional methods or local institution-created tests to diagnose endocrine cancers. 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. 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 distributes the Afirma test in partnership with Veracyte. Sonic Healthcare USA, Inc., or Sonic, offers ThyroSeq ® , a diagnostic test that analyzes genetic alterations using next-generation sequencing. It is also possible that we may face future competition from other laboratory-developed tests (LDTs), developed by commercial laboratories or by other diagnostic companies utilizing similar or different technologies in the endocrine cancer molecular diagnostic tests space. Research and Development We continue to generate and publish clinical evidence mainly related to our products, ThyGeNEXT ® and ThyraMIR ® v2. 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. As part of our growth strategy, 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 $0.6 million and $0.7 million in 2025 and 2024, respectively. 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, 2025, we owned ten 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, 2025, we owned four issued patents outside of the United States, one each in Australia, Canada, Japan, and Israel. As of December 31, 2025, 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 technologies relating to detecting, diagnosing, and classifying thyroid tumors, pancreatic cysts and other forms of gastrointestinal disorders, such as Barrett’s esophagus. 8 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. In October 2014, we acquired RedPath Integrated Pathology Inc. (RedPath) which included its pancreatic and gastrointestinal assets. In May 2025, we discontinued sales of PancraGEN ® , our molecular diagnostic test for pancreatic cancer, following the loss of CMS reimbursement. Additionally, we have a broad and growing trademark portfolio. We have secured trademark registrations for the marks PancraGEN ® , PanDNA ® , and BarreGEN ® in the United States. 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., Mettler-Toledo Rainin, LLC., 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. 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. 9 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. 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 the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (“CLIA”), the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has claimed regulatory authority over 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. On April 29, 2024, the FDA published a final rule that would have amended FDA’s device regulations to phase out enforcement discretion for many LDTs. On March 31, 2025, the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas vacated the final rule. As of the date of this filing, the vacatur remains in effect and FDA has not implemented the rule. Accordingly, FDA continues to exercise enforcement discretion over most LDTs, consistent with historical practice. 10 The FDA retains authority to regulate in vitro diagnostics as medical devices, and it is possible that the FDA could pursue new rulemaking, that Congress could enact legislation addressing IVCTs or LDTs, or that a future court or agency action could alter the current framework. Were FDA regulation of LDTs to be reestablished in whole or in part in the future, our LDTs could become subject to additional regulatory requirements, including potential premarket review, quality system, registration, or reporting obligations. We cannot predict whether or when the FDA or Congress may pursue further action. Compliance with any such requirements could be expensive, time-consuming, and could subject us to significant or unanticipated delays. To the extent the FDA ultimately regulates certain LDTs, our LDTs may be subject to certain additional regulatory requirements. Complying with the FDA’s requirements can be expensive, time-consuming, and subject us to significant or unanticipated delays. Insofar as we may be required to obtain premarket clearance or approval to perform or continue performing an LDT, we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain such authorization. Even if we obtain regulatory clearance or approval where required, such authorization may not be for the intended uses that we believe are commercially attractive or are critical to the commercial success of our tests. As a result, the application of the FDA’s requirements to our tests could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Additionally, if the FDA were in the future to require premarket review or device-level compliance for laboratory developed tests, we could become subject to quality system regulations applicable to medical device manufacturers. Failure to comply with applicable requirements could result in a range of enforcement actions by the FDA, such as 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. Legislative proposals have also been introduced that, if enacted, would potentially supersede the final rule. In March 2017, members of Congress posted a discussion draft of “The Diagnostics Accuracy and Innovation Act”. 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 has been re-introduced in substantially similar forms over the years, and, most recently in March 2023. Under the most recent version of the VALID Act, a risk-based approach would be used to regulate IVCTs while grandfathering many existing IVCTs from certain requirements. 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 would include quality control and post-market reporting requirements. The FDA would have the authority to withdraw from the market IVCTs if there is a reasonable likelihood that such tests will cause death or serious adverse health consequences (among other criteria). Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements could result in enforcement action by the FDA, such as fines, product suspensions, warning letters, recalls, injunctions and other civil and criminal sanctions. However, 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 federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it a felony for a person or entity, including a laboratory, to (among other things) “knowingly and willfully” offer, pay, solicit or receive remuneration, directly or indirectly, in exchange for or to induce the referral of an individual to a person or to purchase, order, arrange for or recommend the purchase of any item or service that is reimbursable under any federal health care program. A violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, which is an intent-based statute, may result in imprisonment of up to 10 years and fines of up to $100,000 for each violation, or both. Convictions under the Anti-Kickback Statute result in mandatory exclusion from federal health care programs, generally for a minimum of five years. In addition, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has the authority to impose civil monetary penalties and fines and to exclude healthcare providers and others engaged in prohibited activities from Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care programs. Civil monetary penalties may be imposed of up to $127,973 per violation and damages of up to three times the total amount of remuneration offered, paid, solicited or received (these per-claim penalties are adjusted for inflation from time to time). Further, claims resulting from a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute constitute false or fraudulent claims under the federal False Claims Act, discussed in more detail below. 11 Although the Anti-Kickback Statute applies only to federal health care programs, a number of states have passed statutes substantially similar to the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibit similar conduct toward other payers, including some that apply to all health plans, third-party payers, and cash-pay patients. Federal and state law enforcement authorities scrutinize arrangements between healthcare providers and potential referral sources to ensure that the arrangements are not designed to improperly 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. Several 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 for or purchases of items or services reimbursable by federal health care programs. In addition to the Anti-Kickback Statute, the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018, (EKRA) was enacted as part of the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act (SUPPORT Act). EKRA is an all-payer anti-kickback law that makes it a criminal offense to, among other things, pay any remuneration to induce referrals to, or in exchange for an individual using the services of a recovery home, a substance use clinical treatment facility, or laboratory. Although it appears that EKRA was intended to reach patient brokering and similar arrangements to induce patronage of substance use recovery and treatment, the language in EKRA is broadly written. The term “laboratory” is defined broadly and without reference to any connection to substance use disorder treatment. EKRA is a criminal statute and violations can result in fines of up to $200,000, up to 10 years in prison, or both, per violation. As drafted, EKRA does not clearly protect incentive compensation to sales employees, a practice that is common in the industry. The government has not issued proposed or final regulations or other guidance interpreting EKRA. Recent enforcement actions and judicial interpretations suggest that EKRA may apply more broadly than initially anticipated, including potentially to certain commission-based compensation arrangements for laboratory sales personnel. Regulatory guidance remains limited and enforcement interpretations may evolve. 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, among other things, a person from knowingly submitting a false or fraudulent claim and 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 False Claims Act authorizes actions to be brought on behalf of the federal government by a private party, known as a relator, 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 relator succeeds in obtaining redress without the government’s involvement, then the relator 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 between $14,308 and $28,619 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 clinical laboratory services and certain other “designated health 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 False Claims Act litigation that the Stark Law applies to Medicaid claims. Some states have also enacted state Stark Law equivalents that can apply, for example, to that state’s Medicaid plan and/or commercial payors and self-pay patients. 12 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 $31,670 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 $211,143 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. Unlike the Anti-Kickback Statute or EKRA, 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 health care 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, EKRA, Stark Law, and other fraud and abuse liability. Our arrangements with healthcare providers are designed to meet available safe harbors and exceptions provided in the anti-kickback laws and self-referral laws and other relevant laws or otherwise comply with such laws. 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, arrangements generally must be commercially reasonable and often compensation must be fair market value. These terms require some subjective analysis. Safe harbors in the anti-kickback laws do not necessarily equate to exceptions in the Stark Law; and there is no guarantee that the government will not take issue with the relationships between the laboratories and the healthcare providers. 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 health care 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. 13 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 use such individually identifiable health information perform functions as a “business associate” for or on behalf of a covered entity. Individually identifiable health information maintained by covered entities and business associates is referred to as “protected health information” or “PHI.” 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 protected 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 protected health information (45 C.F.R. §§ 164.302, et seq.); and “Notification in the Case of Breach of Unsecured Protected Health Information”, which requires business associates to provide certain notifications to covered entities and covered entities to provide certain notifications to affected individuals, HHS and, in some cases, relevant media outlets following a breach of unsecured protected health information (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 protected 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 have enacted privacy and security statutes or regulations regarding individually identifiable health information that, in some cases, are more stringent than those issued under HIPAA and HITECH. 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 preempt 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 laws, rules, or regulations, we could be subject to additional sanctions or other liabilities under those laws, rules, and regulations. 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, fueled by its authority to issue civil investigative demands, 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, data and/or algorithmic disgorgement, biennial assessments by independent experts, monetary redress to consumers, and provision of robust notice and choice mechanisms to consumers. The FTC is not the sole regulator in the federal arena, with the Department of Justice, or DOJ, taking recent steps to protect Americans’ bulk sensitive data against intrusion or access by countries of concern. The recent DOJ Final Rule on Preventing Access to Bulk US Sensitive Data by Countries of Concern, codified at 28 CFR Part 202, imposes detailed prohibitions and/or restrictions on certain data transfers to certain named countries or individuals. So far, those countries include China (including Hong Kong and Macao), Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela. While the Final Rule is subject to enforcement by the DOJ and Attorney General, private litigants have cited violations of the rule in their state UDAP claims. 14 In addition to the FTC Act and other federal laws/rules, 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. More than twenty states have adopted comprehensive consumer privacy laws that are in effect or will take effect within the next 12 to 24 months, and regulate how certain for-profit businesses collect, use, and disclose the personal information of consumers who reside in each respective state. While the specific consumer rights vary from state-to-state, generally these laws confer to consumers in the state 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 or the use of their information for targeted advertising. These laws also require companies to adopt reasonable measures to safeguard the personal information that is collected and regulate categories of “sensitive” data such as information associated with minors, citizenship, consumer-generated health information (outside of HIPAA-covered PHI), 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, de-identified data as defined under HIPAA or in some instances, HIPAA-regulated entities. 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 consumers’ personal information, for example from website visitors. These state consumer privacy laws are generally enforced by the respective state Attorney General. California’s law also includes a private right of action for certain data breaches. Washington State has passed the My Health My Data Act or MHMDA, which came into effect on March 31, 2024. MHMDA regulates consumer health data that is not otherwise subject to HIPAA. The definition of “consumer health data” is broad and applies to a variety of health-related information including non-health information that is used to infer some aspect of current or future medical conditions. MHMDA requires additional transparency requirements related to how companies handle non-HIPAA covered health data as well as additional technical safeguards for “consumer health data.” MHMDA also requires that companies obtain the consent of individuals for certain uses of their “consumer health data.” MHMDA also gives Washington residents a variety of rights, similar to those in the state consumer privacy laws discussed above, and related to the resident’s “consumer health data.” Unlike the consumer state laws, MHMDA includes a private right of action. Should the company become subject to an action brought under MHMDA, it could have an impact on our operations. Nevada and Connecticut have passed substantially similar consumer privacy health laws that came into effect in 2024 and 2023, respectively. However, the Nevada and Connecticut laws do not include a private right of action. Certain state laws, including biometric and genetic privacy statutes, may impose additional requirements beyond HIPAA with respect to the collection, storage, and use of genetic information. Some of these statutes include private rights of action, which may increase litigation risk. 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. 15 The PPACA has also been subject to challenges in the courts; however, the U.S. Supreme Court most recently upheld the surviving elements of the law in 2021. Further changes to the PPACA remain possible. The Trump Administration has signaled 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 types. 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 health care 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 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. Since 2021, we have been contracted with XIFIN, Inc. (“XIFIN”), a healthcare billing services management company, to help manage our third-party billing. 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). Several private payers have 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. Laboratory benefit managers may require separate technology assessments, prior authorization protocols, or contractual arrangements as a condition of coverage. Failure to obtain or maintain approval could materially reduce test volume. We also 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. 16 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 timely 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 Food and Drug Administration (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 ensure 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. 17 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. CMS publishes annual updates to the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule, or CLFS, which is 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. Payment reductions based on PAMA-derived rates have been implemented for applicable tests and may continue through 2027 subject to statutory caps and any further legislative modification. Congress and CMS have continued to take legislative and administrative action that may delay, modify, or otherwise affect PAMA reporting and CLFS implementation, which may affect future payment rates for our tests. PAMA, as amended by the Protecting Medicare and American Farmers from Sequester Cuts Act, among other laws, revised payment reductions and the data reporting schedule for approved Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests (“CDLTs”) that are not Advanced Diagnostic Laboratory Tests. The most recent data reporting period concluded on March 31, 2025 and was based on the data collected from January 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019. Any reductions to payment rates resulting from the new methodology are limited to 10% per test per year in each of the years 2018 through 2020 and to 15% per test per year in each of the years 2025 through 2027. Payments will not be reduced for 2021through 2024 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 (as amended) calls for further revisions of the Medicare Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule for years after 2024, based on 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 27% and 36% of our consolidated net revenues during 2025 and 2024, respectively. 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 Medicare fee-for-service programs to the private health insurance plans, called “Medicare Advantage” plans. There has been growth of health insurance payors offering Medicare Advantage plans and of beneficiary enrollment in these plans. Medicare Advantage plans generally must provide coverage at least as favorable as Original Medicare for items and services covered by Original Medicare, but such plans may impose utilization management, prior authorization, network or other coverage restrictions. Local coverage determinations and Medicare Administrative Contractor policies (including LCDs issued by Novitas) are influential in determining coverage for Medicare beneficiaries, but Medicare Advantage plans and commercial payers may impose additional requirements that affect utilization and reimbursement. 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 does not 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. 18 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 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. There is no guarantee that our interpretation of the law is now or will be in the future consistent with government guidance and interpretation. Changes in regulatory interpretation or the classification of laboratory developed tests as medical devices could alter this analysis and subject us to reporting obligations, including as a result of future FDA rulemaking or legislation. 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 reflected the expansion of the ThyGeNEXT ® panel to aid in identifying the appropriate patients for surgery. In January 2022, the Company announced 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. 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 was previously reimbursing the Company for one of its two thyroid tests, and had agreed to retroactively reimburse for the second test once they had completed their internal administrative adjustments. We were notified by CMS/NCCI that processing of claims for dates of service after January 1, 2022 would be completed beginning July 1, 2022. As of the date of this filing, the Company has no remaining outstanding collections regarding this matter and is fully up to date with CMS. Effective January 1, 2023, the gapfill price for ThyGeNEXT ® was set at $1,266.07. Reporting Segments We operate under one segment which is the business of developing and selling diagnostic clinical services. Employees As of March 2, 2026, we had 102 full time employees and 102 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 Waterview Plaza, Suite 310, 2001 Route 46, Parsippany, New Jersey 07054. Our telephone number is (855) 776-6419. Business Development Series C Preferred Stock Investment by 1315 Capital and Ampersand and Conversion into Common Stock On October 10, 2024, the Company, Ampersand 2018 Limited Partnership (“Ampersand”) and 1315 Capital II, L.P. (“1315 Capital” and, together with Ampersand, the “Investors”) entered into an Exchange Agreement (the “Exchange Agreement”) pursuant to which the Company exchanged (the “Exchange”) an aggregate of 47,000 shares of the Company’s existing Series B convertible preferred stock of the Company, par value $0.01 per share (the “Series B Preferred Stock”), comprised of 28,000 shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by Ampersand and 19,000 shares of Series B Preferred Stock held by 1315 Capital, which represented all of the Company’s issued and outstanding Series B Preferred Stock, for 47,000 newly created shares of Series C Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per share (the “Series C Preferred Stock”), at an issuance price per share of $1,000 (the “Stated Value”). In the Exchange, Ampersand received 28,000 shares of Series C Preferred Stock and 1315 received 19,000 shares of Series C Preferred Stock. 19 On January 20, 2026, the Company announced that all shares of Series C Preferred Stock have been converted into common stock, resulting in the issuance of approximately 23,267,327 shares of Interpace common stock (calculated as $1,000 stated value per preferred share divided by the $2.02 conversion price). Of this amount, 1315 Capital owns approximately 9,405,941 shares of common stock, or approximately 34% of Interpace’s outstanding common stock, and Ampersand owns 13,861,386 shares of common stock, or approximately 50% of Interpace’s outstanding common stock, in both cases subject to change in connection with subsequent issuance activity and public float changes. 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.