EXAGEN INC. 10-K

Item 1. Business. Overview We are a medical technology company primarily focused on the design, development and commercialization of a next-generation portfolio of innovative testing products under our AVISE ® brand, which allow for the differential diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring of complex rheumatic, autoimmune and autoimmune-related disease including, among others, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We believe our strong focus and extensive background in the field of rheumatology, combined with our commitment to exceptional customer service and support, position us well to respond to the needs of rheumatologists, primary care physicians, other specialists, and the patients they serve. Our tests are used in a variety of clinical settings to provide clarity in autoimmune disease decision-making with the goal of improving patients' clinical outcomes. We commercially launched our flagship testing product, AVISE ® CTD, in 2012. AVISE ® CTD enables differential diagnosis for patients presenting with symptoms indicative of a wide variety of connective tissue diseases (CTDs) and other related diseases with overlapping symptoms. Traditional screening methods often lack accuracy, resulting in repeat testing and delayed diagnosis. With significant increases in autoimmune incidence in recent years, AVISE ® CTD provides unique biomarkers that empower clinicians to confidently and quickly diagnose various CTDs. Since launching AVISE ® CTD, we have produced an extensive body of peer-reviewed literature supporting the test’s clinical validity and utility, demonstrating the importance of AVISE ® CTD in patient care. Beginning in late 2022, w e revitalized our organization with the addition of key members to our senior leadership team, including our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Vice President of Sales, Chief Medical Officer, and Medical and Laboratory Director. By leveraging our team’s extensive experience to create clinically distinct solutions that improve patient lives, we have created a strong foundation for growth and believe that we are well-positioned to positively impact patient care and address unmet clinical needs in autoimmune disease . We strive to become a partner of choice for doctors, hospitals, healthcare systems, and payors. Under the leadership of our Chief Executive Officer, John Aballi, who joined Exagen in October 2022, we have been executing an operational turnaround of the business, which has resulted in a return to revenue growth and gross margin expansion while significantly reducing operating expenses and cash burn. Comparing our financial results in fiscal 2024 to fiscal 2022, we have grown revenue by over 20%, expanded our AVISE ® CTD trailing twelve-month average selling price by over 40%, improved gross margin by over 1,200 basis points, reduced operating expenses by over 30% and reduced net loss by nearly 70%. At the same time, we have nearly doubled our salesforce productivity and brought an intense focus to our Research and Development (R&D) investments - resulting in a 45% reduction in related expenses and prioritization of near-term pipeline opportunities. We believe we are well positioned to deliver revenue growth and positive Adjusted EBITDA in the near term. Recent Developments In December 2024, we announced the completion of our 1,000,000 th AVISE ® CTD test, marking a significant milestone that underscores our dedication to supporting patients and clinicians managing CTDs and other rheumatic and autoimmune conditions. In January 2025, we announced conditional approval by the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH), and commercial launch, of our new SLE and RA biomarker assays on the AVISE ® CTD platform. Collectively, we believe these new biomarkers will further improve the clinical utility of AVISE ® CTD and provide clinicians with the information they need to definitively diagnose patients and shorten their autoimmune diagnostic journeys. We expect that the addition of these new biomarkers will lead to improvements in our AVISE ® CTD average selling price, gross margin expansion and increased demand while positioning us for profitability. Our Current Market Our testing products allow for the differential diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring of complex autoimmune and autoimmune-related diseases, including SLE and RA. We leverage our sales channel to primarily target the approximately 6,000 rheumatologists across the United States to promote use of our product portfolio. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences estimates that there are over 40 million patients in the United States with suspected cases of autoimmune diseases. Autoimmune diseases encompass a broad range of serious, chronic and debilitating conditions in which a person’s immune system creates antibodies that mistakenly 2 react against normal healthy tissues, causing inflammation and irreversible tissue damage. Detection of these antibodies through blood tests can help diagnose, prognose and monitor the course of autoimmune diseases. However, knowing when to test and which autoantibody to test for is challenging due to the vagueness of symptoms, unexplained flaring and remission of symptoms, and many conditions which can mimic autoimmune disease. Early and accurate diagnosis of the conditions causing these overlapping symptoms is critical, as an incorrect diagnosis can lead to toxicity from inappropriate medications, irreversible tissue damage and other comorbidities associated with uncontrolled disease. There is no known cause or cure for these chronic conditions and current treatment interventions are targeted at managing symptoms and limiting disease progression. Our flagship product, AVISE ® CTD, enables clinicians to more effectively diagnose complex autoimmune conditions such as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and Sjögren’s syndrome earlier and with greater accuracy, as compared to the current standard of care. Our laboratory specializes in the testing of rheumatic diseases, delivering precise and timely results through our full suite of AVISE ® -branded tests for disease diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring. With a focus on research, innovation, education, and patient-centered care, we are dedicated to addressing the ongoing challenges of autoimmune disease management. Connective Tissue Diseases CTDs are a sub-category of autoimmune diseases involving inflammation of the joints, tissues and internal organs. Persons with CTDs often present to their rheumatologist with complaints of joint pain, fatigue, unexplained fever, inflammation, rash, stiffness and muscle aches. These symptoms overlap among numerous CTDs, including SLE, one of the most severe CTDs, which historically has been difficult to rule out, as well as other autoimmune-related diseases and other disorders that mimic these diseases, such as fibromyalgia. Systemic Lupus Erythematosus SLE, the most common and severe form of lupus, is a chronic, inflammatory disorder that can damage any part of the body, including the skin, joints and internal organs. The blood of a person afflicted with SLE contains autoantibodies, which are the cause of the inflammation and organ damage and are one indicator of immune system abnormalities. SLE is characterized by a rise in symptoms and/or abnormal laboratory test results. SLE varies in severity, from mild cases to those in which significant, and potentially fatal, damage occurs to vital organs such as the brain, heart, kidneys and lungs. Detection of these autoantibodies can assist rheumatologists in the diagnosis of SLE. Diagnosis of SLE allows rheumatologists to initiate the most appropriate therapy to minimize irreversible organ damage and reduce morbidity and mortality. Standard laboratory tests for diagnosing SLE include measuring immunological biomarkers, such as antinuclear antibody (ANA), anti-double stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) and other autoantibody tests. ANA are a group of autoantibodies produced by a person’s immune system when it fails to adequately distinguish between self and non-self. The ANA test detects these autoantibodies in the blood and is a useful screening tool for SLE and other autoimmune and autoimmune-related diseases. The vast majority of SLE patients test positive for ANA. However, the high sensitivity of ANA for SLE is counterbalanced by somewhat poor specificity. According to a study published in 2022 by Dinse et al., which investigated the increasing prevalence of ANA in the United States using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, approximately 0.7%–2.4% of individuals with a positive ANA test have SLE. This lack of specificity leads to many inappropriate non-autoimmune referrals to the rheumatologist from primary care physicians. For example, it has been reported that 30% of fibromyalgia patients may test positive for ANA, potentially generating as many as four million inappropriate rheumatology referrals. In addition, the Dinse et al. study reported the estimated prevalence of a positive ANA test in the normal, healthy, U.S. population to be 16.1% (approximately 41.5 million people), indicating a significant need for a highly specific test for this disease. Anti-dsDNA are autoantibodies that target a person’s double-stranded DNA. The anti-dsDNA antibody test is a very specific test for SLE, as anti-dsDNA antibodies are rarely found in autoimmune diseases other than SLE. A strongly positive anti-dsDNA antibody test makes it very likely that a person has SLE, although if the test is negative it does not necessarily rule out SLE. Many people with SLE have a negative anti-dsDNA antibody test, reaffirming the need for an effective testing product which adds clarity to the rheumatologist’s clinical assessment. Rheumatoid Arthritis RA is a chronic, systemic autoimmune disease in which the immune system attacks the joints and can also affect other organ systems. The annual incidence and prevalence of RA in the United States is estimated to be approximately 135,000 and 2 million, respectively. Patients suffering from RA develop joint damage that is associated with painful inflammation and often progresses to irreversible damage of cartilage and bone, leading to significant disability and a reduction in quality of life and the ability to work. 3 Diagnosis of RA involves performing a complete medical history review with physical and/or radiographic examination of the number and distribution of swollen, tender and painful joints that have persisted for more than six weeks. Laboratory testing for rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibodies and testing for general, nonspecific inflammation with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein tests are used to assist in the diagnosis. Early diagnosis and effective treatment of RA is critically important to prevent erosive bone or joint damage and disability. In effect, rheumatologists are compelled to reach a definitive diagnosis quickly and administer effective treatment. Our Strategy We address the unmet needs of those suffering from debilitating and chronic autoimmune disorders through aiding in differential diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring, to ultimately improve clinical outcomes for patients. We aim to become the standard of care in autoimmune disease testing. The key tenets of our business strategy include: ▪ Expand adoption of our flagship product, AVISE ® CTD . We have demonstrated a solid track record of commercial growth of our AVISE ® CTD test. We believe we are uniquely positioned to continue expanding our commercial presence within the autoimmune disease market by leveraging our specialized sales force and expansive network of relationships with rheumatologists across the United States. Using our specialty laboratory focused on rheumatology, we plan to build upon industry-leading quality, service and technology to support strong AVISE ® CTD adoption while continuing to expand and improve our AVISE ® CTD offering, grow our ordering physician base, and enhance our average reimbursement rates. ▪ Continue to develop innovative testing products, using clear criteria for R&D projects and commercialization milestones . We intend to leverage our protein and molecular assay development capabilities, bioinformatic team and proprietary technologies to pursue the development of additional testing products designed to have superior clinical utility for rheumatic conditions. We undertake research projects that have the potential for impactful results and address the top consumer needs in the rheumatology space. The research projects we support are those that we believe will have a competitive advantage (such as using proprietary technology), a pathway for reimbursement and an established evidence development plan with sufficient market size. Criteria for developing products that we ultimately commercialize include Medicare coverage (specific to patient population), proprietary value-based pricing, published clinical utility and a strategy for medical guideline inclusion. ▪ Deliver sustainable profitable growth . We seek to establish a solid foundation for growth and path to sustained profitability through continued gross margin expansion and improved operating expense efficiencies through the implementation of certain internal initiatives, such as leveraging validation, utility and reimbursement-oriented clinical studies to facilitate payor coverage of our testing products. We center our efforts on long-term reimbursement and average sales price (ASP) growth. This strategy includes optimizing revenue cycle practices, focusing managed care efforts on medical policy expansion and continuing to educate insurance payors on the published, real-world evidence of the clinical utility of our testing products, demonstrating healthcare cost savings and reductions in time to diagnosis. We also seek to improve our per-test costs by focusing on profitable, core test offerings, minimizing fixed costs and overhead, and focusing our laboratory resources on AVISE ® CTD optimization. Additionally, we employ a streamlined salesforce covering territories which are designed to achieve the most efficient and effective reach and frequency for the promotion of AVISE ® CTD. Our Proprietary Technologies We believe the competitive advantage for our testing products is supported by two core proprietary technologies: our AVISE ® Lupus platform, which incorporate Cell-Bound Complement Activation Products (CB-CAPs) for diagnosing SLE and a set of three biomarkers, the t-cell based CB-CAP TC4d, along with two t-cell antibodies, TIgG, and TIgM (the T-Cell Biomarkers), all of which are incorporated into our AVISE ® CTD product. AVISE ® Lupus Our AVISE ® Lupus platform, which we offer as a stand-alone test and as part of our AVISE ® CTD test platform, is a proprietary, patent-protected and clinically validated method to aid in the diagnosis of SLE that provides a significant improvement in sensitivity, relative to the current standard of care. The AVISE ® Lupus platform leverages CB-CAPs 4 technology, which determines the blood levels of complement activated proteins permanently deposited on hematopoietic cells. Rheumatologists measure components of the complement system, including serum levels of C3 and C4, to help diagnose SLE and monitor SLE disease activity. C3 and C4 are the most commonly determined complement proteins in the blood and the precursors to activation of complement proteins into biologically active breakdown products. However, there are limitations with measuring C3 and C4 blood levels as indicators of complement activation. For example, increased synthesis of C3 and C4 by the liver can offset increased C3 and C4 breakdown during activation of the complement cascade, resulting in no change in serum levels. While the limitations and drawbacks of measuring standard components of the complement system, such as C3 and C4, are well recognized by the medical community, these laboratory biomarkers are part of international guidelines for the classification of SLE. We believe the availability of complement biomarkers combined with our proprietary algorithmic interpretations, as a support or replacement of standard C3 and C4 measures, is of great value for rheumatologists and their patients. CB-CAPs technology directly measures protein products of complement activation, such as C4d, the product of C4 activation. These complement activation products become stably attached to surfaces of circulating blood cells to become CB-CAPs. As such, the determination of CB-CAPs in the blood provides benefits when compared to the traditional complement measurement. These include the stable, accurate and unequivocal information of complement activation that enable consistent measurement and an improved ability to assess and monitor changes in biological activity related to activation of the complement system. In a clinical validation study published in 2014 by Chaim Putterman, et al. (the 2014 Study), EC4d and BC4d showed 22% higher sensitivity (66%) than C3 and C4 (44%) in diagnosing SLE, with specificity fixed at 91%. Our proprietary AVISE ® Lupus platform integrates EC4d and BC4d with eight autoantibodies to yield a quantitative and qualitative assessment of SLE risk. The AVISE ® Lupus platform was designed to improve upon the diagnostic sensitivity of conventional biomarkers used to diagnose SLE while maintaining a high degree of specificity. In the 2014 Study, the AVISE ® Lupus platform demonstrated 80% sensitivity for SLE (meaning eight out of ten diagnosed SLE patients tested positive) and 86% specificity for SLE (meaning 86% of non-SLE control subjects with other rheumatic conditions tested negative). A later study published in 2022 by Tyler O’Malley, et al., compared the clinical utility of the AVISE ® Lupus platform to the conventional biomarker strategy in the diagnosis of SLE, demonstrating six-fold increased odds of SLE diagnosis and three-fold increased odds of treatment initiation with a positive AVISE ® Lupus result. We believe this patent-protected platform gives us a significant advantage over our competitors. Our CB-CAPs technology for diagnosing SLE has patent protection through March 2034. T-Cell Biomarkers Our collaborative efforts with the Allegheny Health Network Research Institute (AHN) have resulted in further development of the T-Cell Biomarkers, for which we obtained an exclusive, worldwide license from AHN in May 2021 and launched commercially in January 2025 as part of the AVISE ® CTD test. These biomarkers have been clinically validated, exhibit a high degree of specificity for lupus, are more sensitive for lupus compared to conventional biomarkers and serve as an enhancement to the AVISE ® Lupus profile also included in the test. The TC4d test is patent protected through 2035, representing a proprietary expansion of CB-CAPs, involving a biochemical process wherein complement activation products are measured on T-cells. Our Tests We offer 10 commercialized tests under our AVISE ® brand, offering next-generation insights to aid the diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring of autoimmune conditions. Our flagship product, AVISE ® CTD, represents approximately 90% of our current annual revenue. AVISE ® CTD (Including AVISE ® Lupus) Our flagship testing product, AVISE ® CTD, is a comprehensive test that aids in distinguishing overlapping symptoms and the differential diagnosis of a wide variety of CTDs and other diseases in one convenient blood draw. These diseases include SLE, RA, Sjögren’s syndrome, APS, other autoimmune-related diseases and other disorders that mimic these diseases, such as fibromyalgia. These conditions are often challenging to diagnose as a result of overlapping symptoms. Rheumatologists choose to order the comprehensive AVISE ® CTD test or the more focused AVISE ® Lupus test based on medical necessity, which is determined by each patient’s symptoms and medical history. AVISE ® CTD includes our proprietary AVISE ® Lupus platform, the cornerstone of the SLE assessment. AVISE ® Lupus begins by quantifying the level of CB-CAPs biomarkers (EC4d and BC4d) in the patient’s blood. These biomarkers are elevated in patients with SLE compared to patients with other CTDs. Next, the AVISE ® Lupus 5 platform integrates these cell-bound complement products with 8 autoantibodies to yield a quantitative and qualitative assessment of SLE risk. In January 2025, we added three new unique T-Cell Biomarkers which provide enhanced sensitivity for SLE as compared to conventional SLE biomarkers and serve as a complement to the AVISE ® Lupus profile. In a recent scientific abstract presented at the 2024 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) annual meeting, the combined T-Cell Biomarker panel was shown to capture a unique subset of SLE subjects otherwise testing negative for all conventional SLE biomarkers and the CB-CAPs biomarkers (EC4d and BC4d) already included in the AVISE ® CTD test. The data, which showed that up to 50% of SLE subjects testing negative by conventional SLE biomarkers are identified as positive by one or more T-Cell Biomarker, has subsequently been published Frontiers in Immunology (February 26, 2025). In cases of early inflammatory arthritis, differential diagnosis is broad, including conditions like reactive arthritis, crystal arthropathy, spondyloarthropathy, and other systemic rheumatic diseases such as SLE and Sjogren’s syndrome, alongside RA. Approximately 70% of RA patients show serological evidence of RA, identified by key biomarkers: anti-CCP and RF. The remaining 30% of patients, despite lacking these serological markers, are clinically diagnosed with RA (the Seronegative RA Subgroup); this subgroup is referred to as “seronegative RA.” These seronegative RA patients often face delays in diagnosis due to the absence of serological evidence. In January 2025, we added three unique biomarkers specific to seronegative RA—Anti-RA33 IgA, Anti-RA33 IgG and Anti-RA33 IgM (the RA Sub-Profile Biomarkers)—that help bridge this diagnostic gap and enable AVISE ® CTD to correctly identify a greater proportion of the traditional Seronegative RA Subgroup, allowing for more timely and targeted treatment plans for these patients. Other AVISE ® Tests We offer the following additional tests under our AVISE ® brand. Test Test Description Type AVISE ® APS AVISE ® APS aids in both the diagnosis and management of APS, a hyper-coagulation state leading to thrombosis, pregnancy complications and even death. Rheumatologists would typically request the AVISE ® APS test in patients who initially tested positive for one or more APS biomarkers contained in AVISE ® CTD, or in the management of patients experiencing a high-risk pregnancy. Diagnostic AVISE ® Vasculitis AAV AVISE ® Vasculitis AAV utilizes a testing panel of individual analytes designed to provide physicians with rapid and reliable results in the assessment and monitoring of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) associated vasculitis (AAV). AAV is a group of autoimmune diseases characterized by vascular inflammation and damage. Early signs and symptoms vary greatly and are not always indicative of the severity of the disease. Rapid and accurate testing is essential to prevent death and long-term disability. Diagnostic AVISE ® Anti-Histone AVISE ® Anti-Histone is a test for autoantibodies to histone proteins commonly found in drug induced lupus and SLE patients. Diagnostic AVISE ® SLE Prognostic AVISE ® SLE Prognostic is a panel of autoantibodies that have established predictive value for assessing the potential for complications affecting the kidney, brain and cardiovascular system, including lupus nephritis, lupus psychosis, strokes and heart attacks related to lupus. Rheumatologists rely on insights from the AVISE ® SLE Prognostic test to help tailor their treatment approach. Prognostic AVISE ® Anti-CarP AVISE ® Anti-CarP, is a biomarker-driven RA prognostic test, offered through a distribution agreement with Werfen USA, LLC to help identify RA patients with an increased risk for joint damage. Prognostic AVISE ® SLE Monitor AVISE ® SLE Monitor is a blood test that employs CB-CAPs technology and is intended to assess the condition of a patient that has been diagnosed with SLE. AVISE ® SLE Monitor offers additional insight into a patient’s disease activity as well as possible adverse events. AVISE ® SLE Monitor may be utilized by patients multiple times a year and throughout their lives. Monitoring 6 AVISE ® MTX AVISE ® MTX is a patented and validated blood test that precisely measures blood levels of methotrexate polyglutamates (MTXPG), the active metabolite of methotrexate linked to disease control in RA patients. Methotrexate is the most widely prescribed drug by rheumatologists in the treatment of RA. Measuring MTXPGs allows rheumatologists to identify patients presenting with inadequate exposure to methotrexate, enabling them to optimize dosing and achieve therapeutic levels commensurate with adequate disease control. Monitoring AVISE ® HCQ AVISE ® HCQ is a blood test designed to help rheumatologists objectively monitor levels of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), in whole blood as they treat patients with SLE and other CTDs, including RA. HCQ is typically prescribed to patients to control SLE disease activity and prevent flares. Monitoring Test Reports The AVISE ® portfolio of testing products deliver meaningful insights to healthcare providers around the diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of CTDs. Our flagship product, AVISE ® CTD, delivers a comprehensive assessment of CTDs via some of the most specific and sensitive biomarkers in the industry. This information is delivered within an easy-to-understand test report, typically provided to rheumatologists within five business days of specimen receipt. As shown below, AVISE ® CTD displays a graphical representation of the AVISE ® Lupus index results, along with an accompanying interpretation describing the likelihood of the presence of lupus. Subsequent pages contain results for other biomarkers spanning across a broad number of disease states, conveniently grouped to assist providers in making confident, accurate and timely treatment decisions. The AVISE ® CTD test report facilitates discussion of results with patients due to its intuitive structure and content. A sample of the full AVISE ® CTD report is shown below: 7 AVISE ® CTD Report 8 9 10 Our Pipeline and Growth Opportunities We regularly confer with national experts in the clinical management of rheumatic autoimmune diseases to help guide the organization’s leadership team on the design and execution of research projects, as well as weigh-in on known and anticipated advances in technologies affecting clinical management of rheumatic and other autoimmune diseases. We believe there is significant potential to capitalize on our proprietary technologies by integrating with commercially validated biomarkers to develop testing products with superior clinical utility, on our own or through collaboration with partners. We have prioritized the following pipeline opportunities: PAD4 Biomarkers Citrullination is a post-translation modification in which the amino acid arginine is converted to citrulline, altering protein structure and increasing the potential for autoimmunity. This process is central to the pathogenesis of RA, where an aberrant immune response against citrullinated proteins contributes to chronic inflammation and joint damage. Peptidyl arginine deiminase 4 (PAD4) is a key enzyme in this process, and autoantibodies targeting PAD4 (anti-PAD4 IgG and IgA) have been increasingly recognized for their potential clinical relevance in RA. While anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) and RF are the primary serologic markers for RA, a subset of patients classified as seronegative RA lack these conventional biomarkers, reflecting an unmet need for a test that captures the Seronegative RA Subgroup. Emerging evidence suggests that anti-PAD4 antibodies may serve as novel diagnostic biomarkers for RA, particularly in these unique seronegative cases. Beyond the potential diagnostic utility, anti-PAD4 autoantibodies have been associated with more severe disease phenotypes, including greater joint erosion and extra-articular involvement, further underscoring their relevance in RA pathogenesis. Ongoing research aims to better define their role in early detection, disease activity stratification, and prognosis, particularly in distinguishing RA from other autoimmune and inflammatory arthritides. SLE Disease Activity We are leveraging clinical and laboratory data collected across multiple longitudinal SLE cohorts to identify a set of biomarkers that can inform an AI-developed algorithm aimed at guiding ongoing treatment decisions throughout the course of a lupus patient’s journey. SLE is characterized by a chronic, systemic inflammatory burden, and disease progression is defined by the accumulation of irreversible organ damage typically resulting from chronic inflammation and/or chronic corticosteroid use. Among the challenges for rheumatologists responsible for the care of lupus patients is the unpredictability of the disease course defined by periods of waxing and waning episodes of inflammation. The unpredictable nature of SLE and the lack of reliable conventional biomarkers indicative of present and near-term disease activity results in a significant unmet need for a surrogate method to monitor disease activity. Our goal is to leverage clinical and laboratory data collected across multiple longitudinal SLE cohorts to identify a set of biomarkers that can inform an AI-developed algorithm aimed at guiding ongoing treatment decisions throughout the course of a lupus patient’s journey. RA Disease Activity We are leveraging our extensive biorepository containing clinically annotated serum collected from RA patients to screen for a host of protein antibody markers in an effort to develop an algorithmic solution that accurately predicts RA disease activity in a manner that outperforms conventional RA biomarkers. RA is a chronic inflammatory disorder typically affecting multiple peripheral joints in a symmetrical pattern leading to progressive changes in bone and cartilage that causes pain, swelling, and eventually loss of joint function. RA is thought to affect 1% of the general population and is typically diagnosed in a person’s 40s and 50s. The management of RA involves routine follow up visits where physical signs and symptoms are evaluated and typically inflammatory biomarkers (C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate) are performed as a general indicator of inflammatory load. The conventional approach to inflammatory assessment is non-specific and therefore suffers from both a lack of sensitivity and specificity which limits their utility for gauging actively treatable inflammation or assessing treatment response. Accordingly, there is an unmet need for an objective surrogate of on-target RA disease activity that can be used to inform clinical decision-making in the form of treatment escalation or escalation based on risk of disease activity assessed at regular intervals. Lupus Nephritis Biomarkers 11 We are leveraging our intellectual property licensed from Johns Hopkins University (JHU) to develop a test for detecting protein analytes in urine that can aid rheumatologists in the ongoing management and risk stratification of patients suffering from Lupus Nephritis (LN). LN is an autoimmune disease and a frequent complication in people who have SLE. It causes the immune system to produce proteins called autoantibodies that attack the body's own tissues and organs, including the kidneys. If left untreated, LN can lead to significant health problems, permanent kidney damage and even death. Early diagnosis and treatment are key to managing LN and to preventing it from escalating. Although early onset of LN is not typically noticeable by patients, nearly 40% of SLE patients go on to develop LN. Currently, urinary protein to creatine ratio measurement is the standard means of assessing kidney involvement. However, it is not necessarily indicative of kidney prognosis or treatment response. At the 2024 ACR annual meeting, data was presented by our academic collaborators at JHU demonstrating meaningful progress towards the development of a non-invasive urinary protein biomarker panel. In advance of the 2024 ACR annual meeting a provisional patent application was filed to patent methods of using a multitude of urinary protein biomarkers to predict LN treatment response at 12 months post-treatment, inflammatory kidney activity, kidney damage, and long-term kidney function. Kidney Damage Biomarkers The kidneys are affected in up to 40% of SLE patients. Nephritis is a major contributor to SLE morbidity and prevention and minimization of kidney damage is one of the most important goals of early anti-inflammatory therapy in these patients. Current methods for assessment of kidney involvement/damage are limited to serum creatinine, its derivative, estimated GRF (eGFR), measurement of the protein to creatinine ratio in urine (UPCR) and histologic examination of kidney biopsies. eGFR is insensitive for early-stage disease, UPCR lacks specificity and biopsies are regionally variable and highly invasive with attendant risks. We have developed a four-protein blood-based panel, which sensitively detects kidney damage in early LN and diabetic nephropathy which significantly outperforms creatinine and eGFR. A provisional patent application was filed in November 2024 for methods of detecting kidney damage using the blood-based panel. We expect to make this panel available through Pharma collaborations in early 2025 prior to releasing commercially through our clinical lab. Sales and Marketing We employ a specialized sales force focused on targeting the approximately 6,000 rheumatologists across the United States. Our sales representatives generally have extensive experience in healthcare sales with backgrounds in rheumatology, diagnostics and/or pharmaceutical sales. In addition, our sales representatives complete a comprehensive disease-level sales training program and are required to participate in regular, ongoing training activities and certifications. Our goal is for our sales representative to be viewed as a collaborative resource to the rheumatologists and their practice. Our field-based sales force is organized into 40 territories within the following five regions: West, Central, Northeast, Southeast and Mid-Atlantic. We anticipate adding new territories during 2025, in a measured fashion. We also maintain an inside sales force that helps further our access to rheumatologists located in rural and outlying areas of the United States and works to increase our brand awareness with healthcare providers in these areas. We continually evaluate our sales force's reach and frequency of interactions with rheumatologists, including as we launch our pipeline products. Our specialized sales force and marketing activities are further augmented by our centralized, dedicated client services department. Our client services department uses its high level of technical training to enhance sales efficiency and customer satisfaction by providing personalized customer support. Adoption and Growth through Quality Testing and Service Our focus on quality allows for a dedicated sales approach based on a commitment to understanding the needs of both provider and patient. By raising awareness of the benefits AVISE ® testing provides, our sales team is able to deliver quality testing and support services to providers, and ultimately, their patients. To ensure our marketing and sales efforts are reaching those that we believe could benefit most from AVISE ® , we emphasize execution in three core areas: targeting, messaging and call frequency. We strategically target the highest-potential practices by utilizing various data sources (e.g., market analytics, demographic data, historical therapeutic usage and diagnostic product trends). Furthermore, we believe the increased access afforded by our testing products will allow for patient-focused messaging and the increased accuracy of our testing products over current standard of care diagnostic methodologies. Finally, we execute a high-frequency promotional strategy for our top-targeted rheumatologists and their office personnel to build knowledge, understanding and retention of the benefits of our testing products. 12 We plan to leverage core channels for building awareness and adoption, including our participation with multiple patient advocacy organizations and medical societies, such as the ACR. We have also established strong relationships with multiple rheumatology care management organizations (Super Groups), which can be key in influencing favorable reimbursement. Our AVISE ® MTX testing product has been included in the clinical guidelines for two of these groups. We believe our experience with advancing a testing product from initial development through clinical adoption differentiates us and uniquely positions us to replicate success with our other testing products. Beyond working with these Super Groups, we intend to continue to augment field selling activity with a balanced marketing mix, including print and digital advertising, direct marketing, continuing medical education programs and working with key opinion leaders to support peer-to-peer educational events. Reimbursement, Clinical Validation and Clinical Utility Reimbursement The primary source of revenue for our products is reimbursement from third-party payors and client bill arrangements. Third-party payors include government payors (such as Medicare and Medicaid) and commercial payors (such as insurance companies). Achieving and maintaining broad coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors, including Medicare, for our commercialized and pipeline products is a key determinant of our revenue, financial results and future growth. We are actively engaged in efforts to achieve broad commercial coverage and reimbursement for our current and future products, including contracting with commercial payors. Achieving positive coverage reduces the need for appeals and reduces failures to collect from the patient’s insurance. Additionally, achieving in-network contracts with commercial payors can shorten the time required to receive payments. Our approach to commercial payment is centered on working toward inclusion in clinical guidelines and individual payor medical policies. We seek to accomplish this through continued evidence development and publication, medical director engagement and individual claim-based appeal efforts, detailed as follows: ▪ Meet the evidence standards necessary to be consistent with leading clinical guidelines . We believe inclusion in leading clinical guidelines plays a critical role in payors’ coverage decisions. In order to change clinical guidelines, tests must carry a high level of published evidence demonstrating analytical validity, clinical validity, clinical utility and cost-effectiveness. When studies with such evidence are published in peer-reviewed journals and demonstrate performance superior to standard of care testing, the authors of clinical guidelines may assess the level of evidence and determine whether modifying existing guidelines to include new technology is warranted. ▪ Execute an internal managed care policy and claims adjudication function as part of our core business operations . We employ a team of in-house claims processing and reimbursement specialists who work with patients and payors to obtain maximum reimbursement. In parallel, a managed care team collaborates with our reimbursement specialists to ensure our payor outreach strategy reacts to and anticipates the changing needs of our customer base. Overall, we work to address payors at the national level in addition to high-claim-volume regional payors we have identified based on our current territory coverage. ▪ Cultivate a network of key opinion leaders . Key opinion leaders are able to influence clinical practice by publishing research and determining whether new tests should be integrated into clinical guidelines. We collaborate with key opinion leaders early in the development process to ensure our clinical studies are designed and executed in a way that clearly demonstrates the benefits of our testing products to healthcare providers and payors. While we have contracts for reimbursement with a limited number of commercial payors, we are actively pursuing favorable medical policies and additional commercial payor contracts. When we contract to serve as a participating provider, reimbursements are made pursuant to a percentage of our charges or a negotiated fee schedule amount. For in-network and out-of-network claims for which we are not reimbursed in full (or receive a claim denial), we may elect to appeal the insurer’s underpayment (or denial of payment) or seek payment from the patient. Clinical Validation We demonstrated the clinical validity of AVISE ® Lupus in a study of 794 patients conducted from 2010 to 2014 across multiple leading academic centers. The primary endpoint of the study was the specificity and sensitivity of AVISE ® Lupus compared to common autoantibodies used to diagnose SLE and other CTDs, such as ANA and anti-dsDNA. The final results of this study showed that AVISE ® Lupus demonstrated 86% specificity and 80% sensitivity in distinguishing SLE from other CTDs and fibromyalgia. Additionally, the results showed that AVISE ® Lupus was 13 33% more specific than ANA (53% specificity/89% sensitivity) and 48% more sensitive than anti-dsDNA (32% sensitivity/97% specificity). We further demonstrated the clinical validity of AVISE ® Lupus for detection of probable SLE (pSLE) in a 246 subject, multi-center, prospective, cross-sectional study, first published in the Arthritis & Rheumatology Journal in September 2019. The objective of this study was to evaluate the frequency of AVISE ® Lupus and CB-CAPs as a marker of complement activation in patients with pSLE and the usefulness of the AVISE ® Lupus platform as a predictor of the evolution of pSLE into classified SLE by the ACR criteria. Of the 92 pSLE patients, more pSLE were positive for CB-CAPs (28%) or AVISE ® Lupus (40%) than for low complement (9%) at the enrollment visit (p=0.0001, for each) and an AVISE ® Lupus index score >0.08 prospectively associated with the development from pSLE to SLE by ACR classification criteria within 18 months (hazard ratio = 3.11, p<0.01). With the addition of the novel T-Cell SLE biomarker panel to our AVISE ® CTD panel, we demonstrated the clinical validity of T Cell-bound autoantibodies (TIgG and TIgM) and C4d-bound CD3+ T Cells (TC4d) in a multi-center clinical validation study of 400 clinically characterized patients. The study aimed to evaluate the panel’s performance in differentiating SLE from non-SLE autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) and healthy individuals. At 94–95% clinical specificity for SLE vs. healthy individuals, the sensitivity (95% CI) for SLE was 58.1% (48.1–67.7%) for TC4d, 31.4% (22.7–41.2%) for TIgG, and 29.5% (21.0–39.2%) for TIgM. Notably, the T Cell biomarkers identified 19% of diagnosed SLE patients who were negative for all conventional SLE biomarkers and our CB-CAPs (EC4d and BC4d). Compared to conventional SLE biomarkers (anti-dsDNA, anti-Smith, and serum complement proteins C3 & C4), the novel T Cell biomarkers demonstrated significantly greater sensitivity for SLE (64% vs. 41%; p < 0.001, g = 0.6), with an associated odds ratio of 3.7 (95% CI: 4.9–98.8). These findings support the added clinical value of T Cell biomarkers in enhancing the sensitivity of the AVISE ® CTD panel for SLE. The addition of anti-RA33 autoantibodies to the AVISE ® CTD panel was supported by clinical validation data demonstrating their added sensitivity in seronegative rheumatoid arthritis (RA)—patients clinically diagnosed with RA but testing negative for anti-CCP and Rheumatoid Factor (IgA/IgM). A study involving 651 clinically characterized subjects (290 RA patients, 261 ARD controls, and 100 healthy subjects) with diagnostic cutoffs established at 98% specificity for RA vs. healthy individuals and 95% specificity vs. ARDs, resulted in sensitivities for anti-RA33 IgA, IgG, and IgM of 6.0%, 6.2%, and 17.7%, respectively. Notably, 12% (13/109) of seronegative RA patients were positive for at least one anti-RA33 isotype, demonstrating their additive clinical value. In an internal validation study of 377 clinically characterized subjects (101 seronegative RA, 60 seropositive RA, 143 ARDs, and 73 healthy controls), we established cutoffs at 95%, 96%, and 99% specificity for IgA, IgM, and IgG, respectively. The combined sensitivity in seronegative RA was 16%, with specificity exceeding 90% for RA vs. ARD controls, except for IgG in RA vs. SLE (85%) and IgA/IgM in RA vs. psoriatic arthritis (86%). Collectively, these findings support the inclusion of anti-RA33 autoantibodies in the RA sub-panel of the AVISE ® CTD comprehensive report. Clinical Utility We have collaborated with both academic and community clinicians to demonstrate the clinical utility of AVISE ® Lupus versus standard diagnostic tests in physician diagnosis, impact on patient management decisions, patient reported outcomes and health economics. We sponsored a longitudinal, case-control, retrospective review of medical charts in 2016 to assess the value and clinical utility of AVISE ® Lupus to rheumatologists. The results of this study were published in the Open Rheumatology Journal in 2016 and suggested that a positive AVISE ® Lupus test aids in the diagnosis of SLE versus standard diagnostic tests. In early 2018, we initiated CARE for Lupus, a prospective, randomized, multi-site study to assess the performance of AVISE ® Lupus versus standard diagnostic laboratory tests (SDLT). A total of 145 patients were enrolled across 32 sites between July 2017 and December 2018, with 73 patients enrolled in the SDLT group and 72 patients in the AVISE ® Lupus group. The CARE study was published in September 2019 in Lupus Science & Medicine. Results among patients who tested positive for AVISE ® Lupus (n=9) showed 44% in the AVISE ® Lupus group had a higher likelihood of SLE, compared with 9% in the SDLT group (p=0.127). Among patients who tested negative for AVISE ® Lupus (n=63), 60% in the AVISE ® Lupus group had a lower likelihood of SLE, compared with 37% in the SDLT group (p=0.012). In the group of patients randomized to the AVISE ® Lupus group, positive test results associated significantly with initiation of prednisone (p=0.03) and a similar trend was observed with HCQ therapy (p=0.11). Finally, in the group of patients randomized to the AVISE ® Lupus group, a positive test result associated with an increase in patient-reported outcomes measuring health-related quality of life using five-level EQ-5D (EQ5D-5L index score) from enrollment to visit two (p=0.028), and greater improvements were detectable when compared to the group of patients positive for AVISE ® Lupus and randomized to the SDLT arm (p=0.049). 14 In July 2021, a real-world retrospective analysis of patients tested with the AVISE ® Lupus test was published in the journal Lupus Science & Medicine, titled "A multianalyte assay panel with cell-bound complement activation products demonstrates clinical utility in systemic lupus erythematosus clinical utility study summary." A cohort of 161 AVISE ® Lupus tested patients from 12 rheumatology centers across the United States provided clinical outcome data on diagnosis and treatment decisions following AVISE ® Lupus testing. The study findings revealed a seven to 15-fold increased risk of Lupus diagnosis in AVISE ® Lupus Positive and anti-dsDNA negative patients relative to patients negative for both tests. In addition, AVISE ® Lupus positive and anti-dsDNA negative patients were at three to four-fold increased odds, relative to patients testing negative for both tests, of starting a new HCQ (cornerstone therapy for Lupus) prescription following AVISE ® Lupus testing. Collectively, the study results affirm earlier study findings demonstrating the superior clinical utility and actionability of AVISE ® Lupus vs. standard diagnostic testing for the differential diagnosis of Lupus. In July 2022, we announced new, real-world evidence illustrating that AVISE ® testing can enable decisive clinical action in the differential diagnosis of lupus. The "Complement Activation Products vs Standard ANA Testing: Treatment Outcomes, Diagnosis, and Economic Impact in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus" (CAPSTONE) study was the largest comparative utility study in lupus diagnostics and was published in the Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy. The study leveraged multiple databases encompassing electronic health records and linked insurance claims data on nearly 50,000 patients tested with AVISE ® or standard of care labs from hundreds of rheumatologists across the United States, comparing diagnosis, treatment and cost of care outcomes for new patients tested with AVISE ® Lupus and those tested with a traditional ANA (tANA) approach, including specific autoantibodies. The CAPSTONE study supports that the AVISE ® Lupus test is more clinically effective, both for patients who test positive and those who test negative, as compared to the current standard of care. Important key findings of the CAPSTONE study included, among other things, a: (i) 2x decrease in diagnostic testing costs in the first six-month follow-up period for AVISE ® Lupus [-] vs. tANA[-]; (ii) 3.5x less frequent repeat testing overall when using AVISE ® Lupus vs. tANA; (iii) 6x increased odds of establishing a new SLE diagnosis with AVISE ® Lupus [+] vs. tANA[+]; and (iv) 3x increased odds of initiating one or more SLE treatments with AVISE ® Lupus [+] vs. tANA[+]. The CAPSTONE study exemplifies the advantages of the AVISE ® Lupus test for patients, providers and payors. Delayed diagnosis leads to increased disease burden and diminished quality of life for the patient relative to the current standard of care. By receiving conclusive results, providers are able to initiate treatment early, reducing the need for more aggressive approaches down the road that can lead to irreversible consequences for the patient. Additionally, a conclusive negative test allows providers to lower the number of repeat tests and follow-up visits which is a critical step for achieving diagnostic clarity for the patient. Healthcare Economics In October 2020, a study in collaboration with leading health economic experts was published in the journal ACR Open Rheumatology, titled "Evaluation of the Economic Benefit of Earlier SLE Diagnosis using a Multivariate Assay Panel (MAP)." This was the first ever evaluation of the economics of diagnosing SLE with AVISE ® Lupus (MAP) compared to standard diagnostic laboratory tests in a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 suspected SLE patients. Over the four-year time horizon, AVISE ® Lupus demonstrated an estimated total direct cost savings of approximately $2.0 million ($1,991 per patient). In addition, the study findings from the economic model estimated a $0.7 million dollar savings in total cost of care with AVISE ® Lupus versus a conventional SLE biomarker testing approach, as a result of the increased diagnostic sensitivity of the AVISE ® Lupus test leading to fewer in-patient hospitalization costs. On a per tested basis, the AVISE ® Lupus test is estimated to reduce total cost of care by $655 per eligible patient in the first year. Laboratory Operations We perform all of our AVISE ® tests in our approximately 13,000 square-foot laboratory located in Vista, California. Our laboratory is certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) and accredited by the College of American Pathologists (CAP). Our laboratory is certified for performance of high-complexity testing by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in accordance with CLIA and is licensed by California and all states requiring out-of-state licensure, including the NYSDOH. Our clinical laboratory typically reports AVISE ® testing results within five business days. We believe that our existing laboratory facility is adequate to meet our business needs for at least the next 12 months and that additional laboratory space will be available on commercially reasonable terms, if required. Quality Assurance Our quality assurance function oversees the quality of our laboratory operations. We have established oversight for systems implementation and maintenance procedures, document control processes, supplier qualification, 15 preventive and/or corrective actions and employee training processes that we believe achieve excellence in operations. We continuously monitor and improve our processes and procedures and believe this high-quality service leads to customer satisfaction and retention. Competition The traditional methods used by healthcare providers to test patients with CTD-like symptoms are the main competitors of our AVISE ® testing products. Such traditional methods include testing for a broad range of diagnostic, immunology and chemistry biomarkers, such as ANA and anti-dsDNA, and serum complement biomarkers, such as C3 and C4. We also face competition from commercial laboratories, such as ARUP Laboratories, Inc.; Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings; the Mayo Clinic; and Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, all of which have existing infrastructures to support the commercialization of diagnostic services. Large, multispecialty group medical clinics, health systems and academic medical university-based clinics may provide in-house clinical laboratories offering autoimmune and autoimmune-related disease testing services. Additionally, we compete against regional clinical laboratories providing testing in the autoimmune and autoimmune-related disease field, including Aqtual, Inc. Other potential competitors include companies that might develop diagnostic, disease or drug monitoring products, such as AMPEL BioSolutions, LLC; DxTerity Diagnostics, Inc.; Genalyte Inc.; Immunovia AB; Oncimmune Holdings plc; and Progentec Diagnostics Inc. In the future, we may also face competition from companies developing new products or technologies. We believe the principal competitive factors in our target market include: quality and strength of clinical and analytical validation data; confidence in diagnostic results; sales and marketing capabilities; the extent of reimbursement; inclusion in clinical guidelines; cost-effectiveness; and ease of use. We rely upon independent sources for phlebotomy to obtain patient samples; interruptions to this capability could dramatically impact patient access to our tests. Many of our potential competitors have widespread brand recognition and substantially greater financial, technical and research and development resources; in addition to greater selling and marketing capabilities. Others may develop products with prices lower than ours or have preferred network status that could be viewed by rheumatologists and payors as functionally equivalent to our solution or offer solutions at prices designed to promote market penetration. If we are unable to change clinical practice in a meaningful way or compete successfully against current and future competitors, we may be unable to increase market acceptance and sales of our products, which could prevent us from increasing our revenue or achieving profitability. Human Capital As of December 31, 2024, we had a total of 209 employees: 203 full-time employees and 6 part-time employees. This includes 57 in laboratory operations, 13 in research and development, 59 in sales and marketing and 74 in general and administrative functions. All of our employees are located in the United States, none of which are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We consider relations with our employees to be good. We recognize that attracting, motivating and retaining talent at all levels is vital to our continued success. Our employees are a significant asset and we aim to create an equitable, inclusive and empowering environment in which our employees can grow and advance their careers, with the overall goal of developing, retaining and expanding our workforce, as needed, to support our current pipeline and future business goals. By focusing on employee retention and engagement, we improve our ability to support our business operations and protect the long-term interests of our securityholders. Our success also depends on our ability to attract, engage and retain a diverse group of employees. Our efforts to recruit and retain a diverse and passionate workforce include providing competitive compensation and benefits packages and efforts to ensure our employees' voices are heard. We value innovation, passion, data-driven decision making, persistence and honesty, and are building a diverse environment where our employees can thrive and be inspired to make exceptional contributions to bring novel testing products to patients. Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, motivating and integrating our existing and future employees. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans are to attract, retain and motivate selected employees and directors through grants of stock-based compensation awards and payments of cash-based performance bonus awards, in order to increase stockholder value and the success of our company by motivating our employees to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our objectives. We are committed to providing a competitive and comprehensive benefits package to our employees. Our benefits package provides a balance of protection along with the flexibility to meet the individual health and wellness needs of our 16 employees. We plan to continue to refine our efforts related to optimizing our use of human capital as we grow, including improvements in the way we hire, develop, motivate and retain employees. Intellectual Property Overview We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technologies that we believe are important to our business and seek to obtain and maintain patents for any patentable aspects of our testing products or other inventions that are important to the development of our business. Our success will depend on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important technology, inventions and know-how related to our business. It will also depend on our ability to defend and enforce our patents, maintain our licenses to use intellectual property owned by third parties, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets and operate without infringing the valid and enforceable patents and other proprietary rights of third parties. We also rely on continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen, and maintain our proprietary position in the fields targeted by our testing products and services. We are the owner or licensee of a portfolio of patents and patent applications and possess substantial know-how and trade secrets which protect various aspects of our business. The patent families comprising our patent portfolio are primarily focused on our AVISE ® testing products for the diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring of autoimmune and autoimmune-related diseases. We intend to leverage the intellectual property surrounding our AVISE ® testing products as an important component of our business strategy. Patent Protection for our AVISE ® Testing Products Our portfolio of patents and patent applications related to our AVISE ® testing products generally relates to three aspects: the AVISE ® Lupus platform, the AVISE ® CTD platform and the AVISE ® MTX test. As of February 21, 2025, our portfolio primarily consisted of the following: AVISE ® Lupus Platform We own five issued U.S. patents (US 10,132,813, US 11,360,099, US 11,531,033, US 11,761,965, and US 11,885,812), three U.S. nonprovisional patent applications, and six foreign patents that relate to our AVISE ® Lupus platform. The foreign patents have issued in Europe (EP2972365), China (CN105229470), and Japan (JP6453299). These patents cover the AVISE ® Lupus algorithm. The patents expire between 2032 and 2034. TC4d, TIgG and TIgM Biomarkers We licensed one issued patent (US 9,709,564) that relates to our AVISE ® CTD product. A foreign patent application has been filed in Brazil (BR112017002575 2). These patents cover a method of specifically diagnosing SLE through the combined use of a CB-CAP bound to a t-cell along with t-cell autoantibodies. The U.S. patent expires in 2035. MTX Exposure Assessment Products and Services We own two patents that relate to our AVISE ® MTX product and methods for monitoring methotrexate therapy using red blood cell MTXPG exposure assessments. These patents include U.S. Patent Nos. 7,582,282 and 7,695,908, which are expected to expire in 2026 and 2027, respectively. Proprietary Rights and Processes We may rely, in some circumstances, on proprietary technology and processes, including trade secrets, to protect our technology. However, these can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with those who have access to our confidential information, including our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our proprietary technology and processes by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach. In addition, our proprietary technology and processes may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, contractors or any future collaborators use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions. For this and more comprehensive risks related to our proprietary technology and processes, please see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to our Intellectual Property.” 17 License Agreements Amended and Restated Exclusive License Agreement with the University of Pittsburgh In August 2011, we entered into an amended and restated exclusive license agreement (the UPitt License Agreement) with the University of Pittsburgh (UPitt), through which we obtained an exclusive license to UPitt’s patent rights in certain inventions (the UPitt Patent Rights) related to the use of CB-CAPs technology in the diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring of diseases, including certain patents related to our AVISE ® testing products. Under the agreement, we were required to pay UPitt a low single-digit royalty on net sales of products or services that utilized the UPitt Patent Rights sold by us or our affiliates, subject to minimum annual royalty payments and other adjustment in certain circumstances. The UPitt License Agreement terminated on March 23, 2024, which was the date of the expiration of the last licensed patent covering the applicable licensed product or service, and our royalty obligations for cash collections related to each licensed product or service ended on such date. Amended and Restated Exclusive License Agreement with Allegheny Health Network Research Institute In May 2021, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with AHN, as amended in January 2025, under which we obtained an exclusive, worldwide license to AHN's patent rights in certain inventions (the AHN Patent Rights) related to diagnostics for autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Under the agreement, we are permitted to make, use and sell products and services utilizing the AHN Patent Rights and to sublicense such rights; provided, however, that any such sublicenses may only be granted with AHN's consent. AHN retained the right to practice under the AHN Patent Rights and to use such rights for teaching, research, education, public service, clinical and other research-related purposes. In addition, the agreement is subject to the rights of the U.S. government with respect to the AHN Patent Rights, including under a funding agreement between AHN and the U.S. government and under the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 (Bayh-Dole Act) (35 U.S.C. §200, et seq.). Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act, the U.S. government may acquire a nonexclusive, nontransferable, paid-up license to practice or have practiced for or on behalf of the U.S. government the inventions described in the AHN Patent Rights throughout the world. In consideration for the rights granted to us under the agreement, we paid an initial license fee to AHN to cover past patent expenses and agreed to pay future direct patent costs related to AHN Patent Rights. We were also required to pay AHN a low single-digit royalty on net sales of products utilizing the AHN Patent Rights through the first quarter of 2024 sold by us or our affiliates, subject to adjustment in certain circumstances. Beginning in the second quarter of 2024, we are required to pay AHN an increased low single-digit royalty or a flat annual minimum royalty amount, which royalty obligations continue for each licensed product on a country-by-country basis until the expiration of the last licensed patent covering the applicable licensed product in such country, pending approvals and commercialization, or the earlier termination of the agreement (excluding payment obligations accruing prior to such termination). In the event we sublicense any of the AHN Patent Rights, we are obligated to pay AHN a mid-double-digit percentage of any sublicense income, whether in the form of royalties or sub-license fees. The agreement requires that we diligently develop and commercialize products that are covered by the AHN Patent Rights. If we elect not to pursue intellectual property rights or expand commercialization to certain territories within a commercially reasonable period, AHN may pursue other licenses and terminate our exclusive license with respect to such territories upon 30 days prior written notice. We may terminate the agreement upon 60-day written notice to AHN provided we pay a specified termination fee. AHN may terminate the agreement in the event of our nonperformance of any of our material obligations under the agreement if such nonperformance remains uncured for a certain period of time following our receipt of written notice of such nonperformance or in the event of insolvency. Absent early termination, the agreement will continue until expiration date of the longest-lived patent right included in the AHN Patent Rights. In January 2025, we amended the amended and restated exclusive license agreement with AHN to include additional terms regarding the sale by us of certain combination products under the AHN Patent Rights. Under the amendment, we are required to pay AHN a nominal royalty on net sales of combination products utilizing the T-Cell Biomarkers under the AHN Patent Rights. Exclusive License Agreement Johns Hopkins University In November 2023, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with JHU, under which we obtained an exclusive, worldwide license to JHU’s patent rights in certain inventions (the JHU Patent Rights) related to methods 18 of using urinary protein biomarkers as a means of risk stratifying lupus nephritis patients and predicting treatment response. Under the agreement, we are permitted to make, use, import, export, offer and sell products and services utilizing the JHU Patent Rights and to sublicense such rights, subject to certain limitations. JHU retained the right to practice under the JHU Patent Rights and to use such rights for teaching, research, education, public service, clinical and other research related purposes; in addition to make, use and sell products and services to a qualified humanitarian organization for humanitarian purposes in so-called “least developed countries,” as defined by the United Nations Country Classification. In consideration for the rights granted to us under the agreement, we paid an initial license fee and past patent expenses and agreed to pay future direct patent costs related to the JHU Patent Rights. Under the terms of the exclusive license agreement, we are required to pay royalties in the low single-digits on net sales of products using the assigned patents, subject to annual minimums, as well as certain milestone payments. In the event we sublicense any of the JHU Patent Rights, we are obligated to pay JHU a double-digit percentage of sublicensing income; however, royalties we receive on sales made by sublicensees will be treated as if we made the sale. The agreement requires that we diligently develop and commercialize products that are covered by the JHU Patent Rights, and we have agreed to meet certain development and commercial milestones. JHU may terminate the agreement if we fail to develop, commercialize and sell the licensed products. Additionally, JHU may terminate the agreement for cause upon 60-day written notice in the event of our nonperformance of any of our material obligations under the agreement if such nonperformance remains uncured for a certain period of time following our receipt of written notice of such nonperformance or in the event of insolvency. JHU may terminate the agreement immediately upon written notice to Exagen in the event of a material breach that is incapable of cure. Absent early termination, the agreement will continue for the longer of (i) expiration of the last to expire patent included in the license agreement, (ii) 10 years after the first commercial sale of any licensed product utilizing the JHU Patent Rights, or (iii) if no patents issue, 20 years from the effective date of the agreement (November 8, 2023). We may terminate the agreement upon 90 days’ advance written notice to JHU. Exclusive License Agreement and Collaboration Agreement with Queen Mary University of London In November 2021, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), under which we obtained an exclusive license to QMUL's patent-pending inventions (the QMUL Patent Rights), related to diagnosis and/or development of diagnostic or companion diagnostics for RA. We terminated this agreement with QMUL in September 2024. Regulations Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 As a clinical laboratory, we are required to hold certain federal, state and local licenses, certifications and permits to conduct our business. Under CLIA, we are required to hold a certificate applicable to the categories of laboratory tests we perform and to comply with standards applicable to our operations, including test processes, personnel, facilities administration, equipment maintenance, recordkeeping, quality systems and proficiency testing. We must maintain CLIA certification to be eligible to bill for diagnostic services provided to Medicare beneficiaries. Many commercial third-party payors also require CLIA certification as a condition of payment. Our Vista facility holds a current CLIA certificate. To renew our CLIA certificate, we are subject to survey and inspection every two years to assess compliance with program standards. We elect to participate in the accreditation program of CAP. CMS has deemed CAP standards to be equally or more stringent than CLIA regulations and has approved CAP as a recognized accrediting organization. Inspection by CAP is performed in lieu of inspection by CMS for CAP-accredited laboratories. Because we are accredited by the CAP Laboratory Accreditation Program, we are deemed to also comply with CLIA. The regulatory and compliance standards applicable to the testing we perform may change over time, and any such changes could have a material effect on our business. Penalties for non-compliance with CLIA or CAP requirements include suspension, limitation or revocation of the laboratory’s CLIA or CAP certificate, as well as a directed plan of correction, state on-site monitoring, civil money penalties, civil injunctive suit or criminal penalties, as applicable. State Laboratory Licensing 19 Our Vista facility also holds a state license issued by the California Department of Public Health (DPH). California law and regulations establish standards for the day-to-day operation of a clinical laboratory, including the training and skills required of laboratory personnel and quality control. In addition, California laws and regulations also mandate proficiency testing, which involves testing of specimens that have been specifically prepared for the laboratory for quality control purposes. Because we receive specimens from New York, our Vista facility is also required to be licensed by the NYSDOH New York laws and regulations establish standards in a variety of operational areas, including: ▪ day-to-day operation of the laboratory, including training, supervision and skill levels required of laboratory personnel; ▪ physical requirements of a facility; ▪ equipment; and ▪ validation and quality control. New York law also mandates proficiency testing for laboratories licensed under New York state law, regardless of whether such laboratories are located in or outside of New York. If a laboratory is out of compliance with New York's statutory or regulatory standards, the NYSDOH, may suspend, limit, revoke or annul the laboratory’s New York license, censure the holder of the license or assess civil money penalties. Statutory or regulatory noncompliance may result in a laboratory’s operator being found guilty of a misdemeanor under New York law. New York's law and regulations are more stringent than CLIA in certain respects. For example, NYSDOH must approve a laboratory developed test (LDT) before it is offered in New York. We have received written approval from NYSDOH to offer our products in New York. In addition to New York and California, other states, including Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, require licensing of out-of-state laboratories under certain circumstances. Federal Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests and Certain Devices The laws and regulations governing the marketing of diagnostic products are evolving, extremely complex, and in many instances, there are no significant regulatory or judicial interpretations of these laws and regulations. We perform our tests like AVISE ® CTD, AVISE ® SLE Prognostic and AVISE ® MTX assays in our Vista, California clinical laboratory, and although the performance of such tests is primarily regulated under CLIA, as administered by CMS, as well as by applicable state laws, as described above, the FDA has in recently promulgated regulations asserted its authority over the safety and efficacy of such laboratory developed tests (LDTs), including through pre-market review, and the controls necessary to maintain assay quality. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates any diagnostic tests that meet the definition of a medical device, except under specific, narrow circumstances. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) defines a medical device as "an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including a component part, or accessory, which is, among other things: intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of any of its primary intended purposes." By this definition, in vitro reagents and diagnostic tests are considered medical devices. Specifically, the FDA defines an in vitro diagnostic test (IVD) as "reagents, instruments, and systems intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, including a determination of the state of health, in order to cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent disease or its sequelae." Therefore, the FDA generally considers diagnostic testing products like ours to be IVDs subject to the agency's regulatory requirements. Among other things, pursuant to the FDCA and its implementing regulations, the FDA regulates the research, testing, manufacturing, safety, labeling, storage, recordkeeping, pre-market clearance or approval, marketing and promotion and sales and distribution of medical devices, including IVDs, in the United States to ensure that medical products distributed domestically are safe and effective for their intended uses. In addition, the FDA regulates the export of medical devices manufactured in the United States to international markets. Many of the instruments, reagents, kits or other consumable products used within our laboratories are regulated as medical devices and therefore must comply with FDA quality system regulations and certain other device requirements. We have policies and procedures in place to ensure that we source such materials from suppliers that are in compliance with any applicable medical device regulatory requirements. 20 The FDCA classifies medical devices into one of three categories based on the risks associated with the device and the level of control necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Devices deemed by the FDA to pose the greatest risk, such as life-sustaining, life-supporting or implantable devices or devices deemed not substantially equivalent to a previously 510(k) cleared device, are categorized as Class III. These devices typically require submission and approval of a premarket approval application (PMA). Devices deemed to pose lower risk are categorized as either Class I or II. For most Class II devices, a manufacturer must submit to the FDA a 510(k) premarket notification submission requesting clearance of the device for commercial distribution in the United States. Some low-risk Class II devices are exempted from this requirement. When a 510(k) premarket notification submission is required, the manufacturer must submit to the FDA a premarket notification submission demonstrating that the device is "substantially equivalent" to a predicate device, which is: (i) a device that was legally marketed prior to May 28, 1976, for which PMA approval is not required, (ii) a legally marketed device that has been reclassified from Class III to Class II or Class I, or (iii) another legally marketed, similar device that has been cleared through the 510(k) clearance process. Class II devices may also be subject to special controls such as performance standards, post-market surveillance, FDA guidelines, or particularized labeling. Most Class I devices are exempt from 510(k) premarket notification requirements, but like Class II and Class III devices, are subject to general controls, such as registration and listing, quality system, labeling, and reporting requirements. After the FDA permits a device to enter commercial distribution, numerous regulatory requirements apply. These include: the Quality System Regulation, which requires manufacturers to follow elaborate design, testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures during the manufacturing process; labeling regulations; the FDA’s general prohibition against promoting products for unapproved or "off-label" uses; and the medical device reporting regulation, which requires that manufacturers report to the FDA if their device may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or malfunctioned in a way that would likely cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction were to recur. The FDA has broad post-market and regulatory and enforcement powers, including facility inspections and market surveillance. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. medical device regulatory requirements could result in, among other things, warning letters, fines, injunctions, consent decrees, civil penalties, repairs, replacements, refunds, recalls or seizures of products, total or partial suspension of production, the FDA’s refusal to grant future premarket clearances or approvals, withdrawals or suspensions of current product applications, and criminal prosecution. Although the FDA had historically statutory authority to assure that medical devices, including IVDs, are safe and effective for their intended uses, the FDA has generally exercised its enforcement discretion and not enforced applicable device regulations with respect to LDTs, which are IVDs that are designed, manufactured and used within a single high-complexity CLIA-certified laboratory. We believe that all of our AVISE ® test products are LDTs, as are our near-term pipeline candidate tests. However, in May 2024, the FDA issued a final rule aimed at regulating LDTs under the current medical device framework and phasing out its existing enforcement discretion policy for this category of diagnostic tests; the final rule became effective on July 5, 2024. The LDT enforcement policy phase-out process will occur in gradual stages over a total period of four years, with pre-market approval applications for high-risk tests to be submitted by the 3.5-year mark. Moderate-risk and low-risk tests are expected to be in compliance at the 4-year mark, although FDA has stated it will continue to exercise enforcement discretion with respect to tests that are the subject of pre-market submissions that are pending review. The FDA’s final rule and proposed phase-out process is complex and, concurrently, the agency announced several exceptions from the requirement to comply with full medical device regulatory controls, depending upon the specific nature of the LDT and the clinical laboratory that is offering such LDT for use by healthcare providers. We have begun the process of evaluating the final rule’s potential impact on our AVISE ® test products, our operations, and our business more generally. Publication of the LDT final rule prompted the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) and one of its members, on May 29, 2024, as well as the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) and one of its members, on August 19, 2024, to file complaints against the FDA in the Eastern District of Texas and the Southern District of Texas, respectively. Both complaints allege that the agency does not have authority to promulgate the LDT final rule and seek to vacate the FDA’s action; the two cases were subsequently consolidated into a single action pending in the Eastern District of Texas. Briefing is ongoing in the consolidated case and the outcome is uncertain. The ongoing litigation could potentially affect the FDA’s plans to implement these new LDT requirements, making the implementation timeline somewhat uncertain although no preliminary injunction has been issued to date. Accordingly, the agency has continued its implementation efforts by actively providing guidance and training to clinical laboratories on how to comply with medical device general controls. Following the transition to the new Trump administration, it is unclear whether the Executive Branch of the U.S. government will continue to defend the FDA’s rulemaking action in the consolidated litigation in Texas or if it will take steps to rescind or modify the LDT final rule. Affected stakeholders also continue to press for a comprehensive legislative solution to create a harmonized paradigm for oversight of LDTs by both the FDA and CMS, instead of implementation of the FDA’s final rule, which may be disruptive to the industry and to patient access to certain diagnostic tests. However, this FDA rulemaking was initiated after years of failed congressional attempts to harmonize the regulatory paradigms 21 applicable to LDTs and other IVDs, making it unclear whether any legislative efforts would be successful going forward. The outcome of the November 2024 elections on the composition of the 2025-2026 Congress, with both the Senate and House transitions to Republican control, also creates uncertainties for the diagnostic industry. Even though we presently commercialize our tests as LDTs, the FDA may disagree that our marketed tests are within the scope of its current enforcement discretion criteria for LDTs, our tests may in the future become subject to more onerous regulation by the FDA. If and when the FDA begins to actively enforce its premarket submission regulations with respect to LDTs generally or to our tests in particular, whether as a result of new legislative authority or under the May 2024 LDT final rule, depending upon the risk classification of each individual test, we may be required to obtain premarket clearance for our diagnostic assays under Section 510(k) of the FDCA or approval of a PMA. The process for submitting a 510(k) premarket notification and receiving FDA clearance usually takes from three to 12 months, but it can take significantly longer, and clearance is never guaranteed. The process for submitting and obtaining FDA approval of a PMA generally takes from one to three years or even longer, and approval is not guaranteed. PMA approval typically requires extensive clinical data and can be significantly longer, more expensive and more uncertain than the 510(k) clearance process. If premarket review is required for some or all of our tests, the FDA could require that we stop selling our tests and testing services pending clearance or approval and conduct clinical testing prior to making submissions to FDA to obtain premarket clearance or approval. The FDA could also require that we label our tests as investigational or limit the labeling claims we are permitted to make. Regulation of Clinical Trials We have also conducted and may in the future conduct research studies for our AVISE ® tests and our other tests in development that involve clinical investigators and human subjects (or stored specimens from human subjects) at sites in the United States. We may need to conduct additional clinical trials for the AVISE ® tests, as well as other tests we may offer in the future, to drive test adoption in the marketplace and reimbursement. Should we not be able to perform these studies, or should their results not provide clinically meaningful data and value for clinicians, adoption of our tests could be impaired and we may not be able to obtain reimbursement for them. The conduct of clinical trials is also subject to extensive federal and institutional regulations intended to assure that the data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, safety, and welfare of study participants are protected. Most studies involving human participants must be reviewed and approved by, and conducted under the auspices of, a duly-constituted institutional review board (IRB), which is a multi-disciplinary committee responsible for reviewing and evaluating the risks and benefits of a clinical trial for participating subjects and monitoring the trial on an ongoing basis. Companies sponsoring the clinical trials and investigators also must comply with, as applicable, regulations, guidelines and IRB requirements for obtaining informed consent from the study subjects, following the protocol and investigational plan, adequately monitoring the clinical trial, and timely reporting of adverse events. The sponsoring company or the IRB may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. In addition, trials involving human subjects often require significant time and cash resources to complete and are subject to a high degree of risk, including risks of experiencing delays, failing to complete the trial or obtaining unexpected or negative results. If the investigational device presents a “significant risk,” as defined by the FDA, the agency requires the device sponsor to submit an investigational device exemption application (IDE) to the FDA. The exemption must become effective prior to commencing human clinical studies. A significant risk device is one that presents a potential for serious risk to the health, safety or welfare of a patient and either is implanted, used in supporting or sustaining human life, substantially important in diagnosing, curing, mitigating or treating disease or otherwise preventing impairment of human health, or otherwise presents a potential for serious risk to a patient. An IDE must be supported by appropriate non-clinical data, such as animal and laboratory test results, showing that the device has a safety profile appropriate for human testing and that the trial protocol is scientifically sound. The IDE will automatically become effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA expressly approves or denies the application in writing or notifies the sponsor that the investigation is on hold and may not begin until the sponsor provides supplemental information about the investigation that satisfies the agency’s concerns. If the FDA determines that there are deficiencies or other concerns with an IDE that require modification of the trial, the FDA may permit a clinical trial to proceed under a conditional approval or the sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. If the device presents a non-significant risk to the patient according to criteria established by FDA as part of the IDE regulations, a sponsor may begin the clinical trial after obtaining approval for the trial by one or more IRBs without separate authorization from the FDA, but must still comply with abbreviated IDE requirements, such as monitoring the investigation, ensuring that the investigators obtain informed consent, and labeling and record-keeping requirements. 22 In the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, Congress amended the FDCA to require the sponsor of any pivotal clinical trial that will be used to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of a medical device marketing authorization submission to develop a diversity action plan for such trial, and if submission of an IDE application is required, to submit such diversity action plan to the FDA. The action plan must include the sponsor’s diversity goals for enrollment, as well as a rationale for the goals and a description of how the sponsor will meet them. The FDA may grant a waiver for some or all of the requirements for a diversity action plan. It is unknown at this time how the diversity action plan may affect device pivotal clinical trial planning and timing, but if FDA objects to a sponsor’s diversity action plan and requires the sponsor to amend the plan or take other actions, it may delay trial initiation. Advertising of Laboratory Services or LDTs Advertising for laboratory services and diagnostic testing products is subject to federal truth-in-advertising laws enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), as well as comparable state consumer protection laws, whether or not such services are regulated by the FDA as Class I or Class II devices or not directly subject to enforcement discretion with respect to the FDA’s device requirements as LDTs. Under the Federal Trade Commission Act (the FTC Act), the FTC is empowered, among other things, to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; (b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers; and (c) gather and compile information and conduct investigations relating to the organization, business, practices, and management of entities engaged in commerce. The FTC has very broad enforcement authority, and failure to abide by the substantive requirements of the FTC Act and other consumer protection laws can result in administrative or judicial penalties, including civil penalties, injunctions affecting the manner in which we would be able to market services or products in the future, or criminal prosecution. Federal and State Physician Self-Referral Prohibitions We are subject to the federal physician self-referral prohibitions, commonly known as the Stark Law, and to similar state law restrictions, such as California’s Physician Ownership and Referral Act of 1933 (PORA), and other comparable state laws. The Stark Law generally prohibits us from billing Medicare or Medicaid for certain designated health services, including clinical laboratory services, when the physician ordering the service, or any member of such physician’s immediate family, has a financial relationship with us, unless the arrangement meets an exception to the prohibition. A financial relationship can be a compensation arrangement or an ownership or investment interest. Sanctions for a Stark Law violation include the following: ▪ denial of payment for the services provided in violation of the prohibition; ▪ refunds of amounts collected in violation of the Stark Law; ▪ significant civil penalties for each bill or claim for a service arising out of the prohibited referral, and additional penalties for each arrangement or scheme that the parties know (or should know) has the principal purpose of circumventing the Stark Law's prohibition; ▪ the imposition of penalties of up to three times the amounts assessed for each item or service wrongfully claimed; and ▪ possible exclusion from federal healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. The Stark Law applies regardless of any intent by the parties to induce or reward referrals or the reasons for the financial relationship and the referral. In addition, violations of the Stark Law may also serve as the basis for liability under the federal False Claims Act, which can result in additional civil penalties. Similarly, PORA makes it unlawful for a physician or certain other healing arts licensees to refer a person for certain healthcare services, including clinical laboratory services, if the licensee has a financial interest with the person or entity that receives the referral, unless an exemption is met. Unlike the Stark Law, PORA applies regardless of the source of payment. PORA also prohibits the submission of claims for services provided pursuant to a prohibited referral, and violation of this prohibition constitutes a public offense and is punishable upon conviction by a fine not exceeding fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for each violation and appropriate disciplinary action. Other states also have self-referral restrictions with which we have to comply, some of which differ from those imposed by the Stark Law or PORA. Federal and State Anti-Kickback Laws 23 The Federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it a felony for a person or entity, including a clinical laboratory, to knowingly and willfully offer, pay, solicit or receive any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, in order to induce or in return for the referral of an individual for the furnishing of, or the recommending or arranging for the furnishing of, purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for or recommending purchasing, leasing or ordering of any item or service that is reimbursable in whole or in part, under any federal healthcare program. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Courts have broadly interpreted the scope of the Anti-Kickback Statute and generally have held that the statute may be violated if merely one purpose of a payment arrangement is to induce referrals. In addition to statutory exceptions to the Anti-Kickback Statute, regulations provide for a number of safe harbors. If an arrangement meets the provisions of a safe harbor or exception, it is deemed to comply with the Anti-Kickback Statute, and the parties are immune from prosecution. An arrangement must fully comply with each element of an applicable safe harbor in order to qualify for protection. Failure to meet the requirements of an exception or a safe harbor does not render an arrangement illegal. Rather, the government may evaluate such arrangements on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all facts and circumstances. A violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute may result in imprisonment for up to ten years and significant fines for each violation and additional administrative civil money penalties, plus up to three times the amount of the remuneration paid. Convictions under the Anti-Kickback Statute result in mandatory exclusion from federal healthcare programs for a minimum of five years. In addition, a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute can serve as the basis of liability under the federal False Claims Act, which is discussed in greater detail below. Although the Anti-Kickback Statute applies only to items and services reimbursable under any federal healthcare program, a number of states, including California, have passed statutes substantially similar to the Anti-Kickback Statute that apply to all third-party payors, including commercial insurers, and, in some states, to patients without insurance. The California Attorney General and courts have interpreted the California anti-kickback and fee-splitting laws in substantially the same way as the courts have interpreted the Anti-Kickback Statute. Penalties under such state laws include imprisonment and significant monetary fines. In addition, in October 2018, 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. EKRA is an all-payor 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. However, unlike the Anti-Kickback Statute, EKRA is not limited to services covered by federal healthcare programs but applies more broadly to services covered by “healthcare benefit programs,” including commercial third-party payors. Although EKRA apparently 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. Further, certain of EKRA’s exceptions are inconsistent with the Anti-Kickback Statute and regulations. EKRA permits the U.S. Department of Justice to issue regulations clarifying EKRA’s exceptions or adding additional exceptions, but such regulations have not yet been issued. Other Federal and State Healthcare Laws In addition to the requirements discussed above, several other healthcare fraud and abuse laws could have an effect on our business. For example, federal law permits the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG), to exclude an individual or entity from Medicare or Medicaid for charging federal healthcare programs, including Medicare or Medicaid, substantially in excess of its usual charges for its items or services absent a finding of good cause. The terms “usual charge” and “substantially in excess” are subject to varying interpretations, and the HHS OIG has withdrawn multiple versions of a proposed rule intended to implement the statute. The federal False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, a person from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment to 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 pursuant to its qui tam provisions. Because the complaint in a qui tam action is initially filed under seal, the action may be pending for some time before the defendant is even aware of the action. Regardless of whether the government intervenes in the action, the relator, if successful, will receive a percentage of the recovery. In addition, providers and suppliers must report and return any overpayments received from the Medicare and Medicaid programs within 60 days of identification, and failure to identify and return such overpayments exposes the provider or supplier to federal False Claims Act liability. Violation of the federal False Claims Act may result payment of up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus 24 significant per-claim civil penalties, as well as mandatory exclusion from government healthcare programs. Several states, including California, have enacted comparable false claims laws that may apply regardless of payor. The federal civil monetary penalties law (the CMP Law) prohibits, among other things, (1) the offering or transfer of remuneration (including a waiver of copayments and deductible amounts) to a Medicare or Medicaid 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 Medicaid, unless an exception applies; (2) employing or contracting with an individual or entity that the provider knows or should know is excluded from participation in a federal healthcare program; (3) billing for services requested by an unlicensed physician or an excluded provider; (4) billing for medically unnecessary services; and (5) presenting or causing to be presented a claim to a federal healthcare program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent. The penalties for violating the CMP Law may include exclusion, substantial fines, and payment of up to three times the amount billed, depending on the nature of the offense. As noted, a person who offers or provides to a Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary any remuneration, including waivers of co-payments, co-insurance and deductible amounts (or any part thereof), that the person knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular provider, practitioner or supplier of Medicare or Medicaid payable items or services may be held liable under the CMP Law. Moreover, in certain cases, providers who routinely waive amounts owed by federal healthcare program beneficiaries can also be held liable under the Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal False Claims Act. One of the exceptions to the prohibition under the CMP Law covers non-routine, unadvertised waivers of copayments or deductible amounts based on individualized determinations of financial need or exhaustion of reasonable collection efforts, and the Anti-Kickback Statute has a safe harbor. The HHS OIG has emphasized in guidance documents that this exception should only be used on a case-by-case basis to address the financial needs of each particular patient. Although this prohibition applies only to federal healthcare program beneficiaries, applicable state laws related to, among other things, unlawful schemes to defraud, excessive fees for services, tortious interference with patient contracts and statutory or common law fraud, may also be implicated for similar practices offered to patients covered by commercial payors. Federal criminal statutes prohibit, among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including those administered by commercial payors, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Like the Anti-Kickback Statute, this federal criminal statute requires a showing of intent, but a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act imposes annual reporting requirements on manufacturers of certain devices, drugs and biologics for certain payments and transfers of value by them and in some cases their distributors to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain other advanced non-physician healthcare practitioners (such as nurse practitioners), and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Any failure to comply with these reporting requirements could result in significant fines and penalties. Because we manufacture our own in vitro diagnostic tests solely for use by or within our own laboratory, we believe that we are exempt from these reporting requirements. We may become subject to such reporting requirements under the terms of current CMS regulations, however, if the FDA requires us to obtain marketing authorizations for our diagnostic tests as medical devices (whether because the agency determines that one or more of such tests do not fall within the scope of the agency’s existing LDT definition or because of its recently issued final rule to exercise authority over LDTs as medical devices) or Congress enacts legislative reforms to the federal oversight of LDTs to subject them to FDA regulation and/or the reporting requirements of the Sunshine Act. It is presently unknown how CMS will respond to the recently finalized FDA policy change to effectively render all LDTs medical device products under federal law, and whether or when it will assert that the Sunshine Act’s reporting requirements will begin to apply to the manufacturers of such LDTs. Given that litigation is ongoing between members of the clinical laboratory industry and FDA/HHS in relation to the May 2024 LDT final rule, it may be many months or even years before we have clarity on the applicability of state and federal Sunshine Act laws to our business. Certain states also require medical device manufacturers to maintain compliance programs and/or be licensed as manufacturers or distributors by a state professional board or health department. Because the FDA’s now-in-effect final rule renders a clinical laboratory like ours a “medical device manufacturer,” we have begun the process of evaluating whether and to what extent those kinds of medical device-specific state requirements may be applicable to our operations. We are also subject to applicable state restrictions on laboratory billing. These laws vary from state to state but generally are intended to prevent a provider who ordered but did not perform the service from billing for that service at a markup. For example, California has an anti-markup statute with which we must comply, which prohibits a provider from charging for any laboratory test that it did not perform unless the provider (a) notifies the patient, client 25 or customer of the name, address and charges of the laboratory performing the test, and (b) charges no more than what the provider was charged by the clinical laboratory that performed the test except for any other service actually rendered to the patient by the provider (for example, specimen collection, processing and handling). This provision applies, with certain limited exceptions, to licensed persons such as physicians and clinical laboratories regulated under California’s Business and Professions Code. A violation of this provision can lead to imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $10,000. Other states have similar anti-markup and other client billing restrictions with which we must comply. Many states also have "direct-bill" laws, that require the party that performed the service to bill for the service, with certain exceptions. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the fraud and abuse laws described above or any other healthcare regulatory laws that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including potentially significant criminal and civil and/or administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, diminished profits and future earnings, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. International Regulations If we market our testing products outside of the United States, we may be subject to foreign regulatory requirements governing human clinical testing, prohibitions on the import of tissue necessary for us to perform our testing products or restrictions on the export of tissue imposed by countries outside of the United States or the import of tissue into the United States, and marketing approval. These requirements vary by jurisdiction, differ from those in the United States and may in some cases require us to perform additional pre-clinical or clinical testing. In many countries outside of the United States, coverage, pricing and reimbursement approvals are also required. Additionally, many countries in which we may offer any of our testing products in the future have anti-kickback regulations prohibiting providers from offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, in order to induce business that is reimbursable under any national healthcare program. Privacy and Security Laws U.S. Data Privacy and Security Laws The Administrative Simplification provisions of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), as amended by the federal Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) the U.S. Department of HHS has issued regulations that established comprehensive federal standards for the privacy and security of health information. HITECH, among other things, expanded and strengthened HIPAA, created new targets for enforcement, imposed new penalties for noncompliance, and established new breach notification requirements. HIPAA applies to health plans, healthcare clearing houses, and healthcare providers that conduct certain healthcare transactions electronically (collectively, Covered Entities), as well as individuals or entities that perform services for them involving the use, or disclosure of, individually identifiable health information or "protected health information" (PHI) under HIPAA (Business Associates). HIPAA also regulates and standardizes the codes, formats and identifiers used in certain healthcare transactions and standardization of identifiers for health plans and providers, for example insurance billing. Any non-compliance with HIPAA and HITECH and related penalties, could adversely impact our business. The HIPAA security standards require the adoption of administrative, physical, and technical safeguards and the adoption of written security policies and procedures to maintain the security of PHI. Also, federal agencies are increasing their focus on the importance of cybersecurity in protecting health information. For example, HHS outlined its cybersecurity strategy for the health care sector on December 6, 2023, which builds on a national strategy published by the White House on March 1, 2023, and on February 16, 2024, the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced the publication of a cybersecurity resource guide for implementing HIPAA. The HIPAA privacy regulations address the privacy of PHI by limiting the use and release of such information. They also set forth certain rights that an individual has with respect to an individual’s PHI maintained by a covered entity, including the right to access or amend certain records containing PHI, request an accounting of disclosures of PHI, and to request restrictions on the use or disclosure of PHI. The HIPAA breach notification regulations impose certain reporting requirements on Covered Entities and their Business Associates in the event of a breach of PHI. Covered Entities must report breaches of PHI that has not been encrypted or otherwise secured in accordance with guidance from the Secretary of HHS (the Secretary). Breaches must be reported as soon as reasonably practicable, but no later than sixty days following discovery of the breach. Reports must be made to affected individuals, the 26 Secretary, and depending on the size of the breach, the local and national media. Covered Entities like us are also subject to the HHS HIPAA audit program and may be investigated in connection with a privacy or data security complaint. Significant civil and criminal fines and other penalties may be imposed for violating HIPAA directly, and in connection with acts or omissions of any agents, including downstream business associates, as determined according to the federal common law of agency. Penalties for failure to comply with a requirement of HIPAA and HITECH vary significantly depending on the failure and include civil monetary penalties of up to approximately $2.1 million per violation of the same requirement per calendar year (as of August 8, 2024, subject to annual inflation adjustments). A single breach incident can violate multiple requirements, resulting in potential penalties in excess of $2.1 million. Additionally, a person who knowingly obtains or discloses individually identifiable health information in violation of HIPAA may face a criminal penalty of up to $50,000 and up to one year of imprisonment. These criminal penalties increase if the wrongful conduct involves false pretenses or the intent to sell, transfer or use identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm. Covered Entities are also subject to enforcement by state Attorneys General who were given authority to enforce HIPAA. Additionally, while HIPAA does not create a private right of action allowing individuals to file suit against us in civil court for violations of HIPAA, its standards have been used as the basis for duty of care cases in state civil suits such as those for negligence or recklessness in the misuse or breach of PHI. Further, to the extent that we submit electronic healthcare claims and payment transactions that do not comply with the transaction standards established under HIPAA and HITECH, payments to us may be delayed or denied. Even when HIPAA does not apply, according to the FTC, failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure constitutes unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. The FTC expects a company’s data security measures to be reasonable and appropriate in light of the sensitivity and volume of consumer information it holds, the size and complexity of its business, and the cost of available tools to improve security and reduce vulnerabilities. Individually identifiable health information is considered sensitive data that merits stronger safeguards. The FTC and states' Attorneys General have also brought enforcement actions and prosecuted some data breach cases as unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices under the FTC Act and comparable state laws. The HIPAA privacy and security regulations establish a uniform federal "floor" and do not preempt state laws that are more stringent or provide individuals with greater rights with respect to the privacy or security of, and access to, their records containing PHI or insofar as such state laws apply to personal information that is broader in scope than PHI. Certain state laws govern the privacy and security of health-related and other personal information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. The State of California, for example, has implemented comprehensive laws and regulations. The California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) imposes restrictive requirements regulating the use and disclosure of health information and other personally identifiable information. In addition to the CMIA, California adopted the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), which went into effect January 1, 2020. The CCPA, among other things, created new data privacy obligations for covered companies and provides new privacy rights to California residents, including the right to opt out of certain disclosures of their information. It also created individual privacy rights for California consumers and increased the privacy and security obligations of entities handling certain categories of personal information. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. Although the law includes limited exceptions, including for PHI maintained by a Covered Entity or Business Associate under HIPAA and medical information maintained by healthcare providers under the CMIA, it may regulate or impact our processing of personal information depending on the context. Further, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) went into effect January 1, 2023, strengthening the CCPA. The CPRA imposes additional data protection obligations on covered businesses, including additional consumer rights processes, limitations on data uses, new audit requirements for higher risk data, and opt outs for certain uses of sensitive data and expands the application of the CCPA to all human resources personal information of our California-based employees. It also created a new California data protection agency authorized to issue substantive regulations and is expected to result in increased privacy and information security enforcement. Various states such as Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia have enacted their own omnibus consumer 27 privacy laws similar to the CCPA, and other states are considering proposals for such laws, all of which increases the complexity of compliance and the risk of failures to comply. Numerous other federal and state laws, including consumer protection laws and regulations, govern the collection, dissemination, use, access to, confidentiality and security of patient health information. For example, Washington state recently enacted the “My Health My Data” Act which regulates a broad category called “consumer health data,” defined as “personal information that is linked or reasonably linkable to a consumer and that identifies a consumer’s past, present, or future physical or mental health.” Notably, the “My Health My Data” Act contains a private right of action, which is expected to increase litigation. In addition, Congress and some states are considering new laws and regulations that further protect the privacy and security of medical records or medical information. With the recent increase in publicity regarding data breaches resulting in improper dissemination of consumer information, all 50 states have passed laws regulating the actions that a business must take if it experiences a data breach, as defined by state law, including prompt disclosure within a specified amount of time to affected individuals. In addition to data breach notification laws, some states have enacted statutes and rules requiring businesses to reasonably protect certain types of personal information they hold or to otherwise comply with certain specified data security requirements for personal information. Congress has also been considering similar federal legislation relating to data privacy and data protection. Many states have also implemented genetic testing and privacy laws imposing specific patient consent requirements and requirements for protecting test results. The interplay of federal and state laws regulating genetic information may be subject to varying interpretations by courts and government agencies, creating complex compliance issues for us and potentially exposing us to additional expense, adverse publicity and liability. Further, as regulatory focus on genetic privacy issues continues to increase and laws and regulations concerning the protection of personal information expand and become more complex, these potential risks to our business could intensify. In addition, the interpretation and application of consumer, health-related, and data protection laws are often uncertain, contradictory, and in flux. For example, increasing concerns about health information privacy have recently prompted the federal government to issue guidance, taking a newly expansive view of the scope of the laws and regulations that they enforce. The applicability and requirements of these laws and penalties for violations vary widely. Failure to maintain compliance, or changes in state or federal laws regarding privacy or security, could result in civil and/or criminal penalties and damages and could have a material adverse effect on our business. Also, more than thirty states regulate artificial intelligence (AI) or are considering proposed legislation that would regulate AI. Generally, such regulations aim to protect individuals such as consumers, employees, and/or job applicants from bias, discrimination, and invasion of privacy and to promote transparency with respect to use of AI by companies. Information Blocking Rules The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) coordinates the ongoing development of standards to enable interoperable health information technology infrastructure nationwide in the healthcare sector. In May 2020, ONC released the final Information Blocking Rule to implement the interoperability and patient access provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act, which took effect in 2021. We need to continually review our practices for conduct that could be considered as likely to interfere with access, exchange or use of electronic health information, as those practices are prohibited by the Information Blocking Rule, unless one of the exceptions outlined in the Information Blocking Rule applies. Among other things, the Information Blocking Rule requires us to provide patients with on-demand access to laboratory test results. These requirements can be inconsistent with our obligations as a laboratory under state law and/or medical or ethical standards. It is currently unclear how the ONC will approach delays in providing patient access in these situations. Healthcare providers including laboratories will be subject "disincentives" for violations of the Information Blocking Rule. HHS and ONC released a final rule establishing disincentives for health care providers that have committed information blocking on June 24, 2024, potentially affecting certain providers’ eligibility in the Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program and Medicare Shared Savings Program. HHS indicated it may establish additional health care provider disincentives in future rulemaking. GDPR and Foreign Laws We are also subject to foreign privacy laws in the foreign jurisdictions in which we sell our testing products. The interpretation, application and interplay of consumer and health-related data protection laws in the United States, Europe and elsewhere are often uncertain, contradictory and in flux. In Europe, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into full effect in May 2018. The GDPR implements stringent operational requirements for processors and controllers of personal data, including, for example, expanded disclosures about how personal information is collected and used, limitations on retention of information, increased requirements pertaining to health 28 data and pseudonymized (i.e., key-coded) data, mandatory data breach notification requirements, more robust rights for individuals in regard to their personal data and higher standards for controllers to demonstrate that they have obtained valid consent for certain data processing activities. It provides that European Union (EU), and European Economic Area (EEA), member states may make their own further laws and regulations, which may impose further limitations, including in relation to the processing of biometric or health data, which may result in differences between member state laws, limit our ability to use and share personal data, cause our costs to increase and/or harm our business and/or financial condition. Among other requirements, the GDPR also regulates transfers of personal data subject to the GDPR to third countries that have not been found to provide adequate protection to such personal data, including the United States, and the efficacy and longevity of current transfer mechanisms between the EU and the United States remains uncertain. For example, in 2016, the EU and the United States agreed to a transfer framework for data transferred from the EU to the United States, called the Privacy Shield, but the Court of Justice of the EU invalidated the Privacy Shield when it decided the case Maximilian Schrems vs. Facebook (Case C-311-18), known as “Schrems II.” However, on July 10, 2023, the European Commission adopted an adequacy decision for a new mechanism for transferring data from the EU to the United States – the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, which provides EU individuals with several new rights, including the right to obtain access to their data, or obtain correction or deletion of incorrect or unlawfully handled data. The adequacy decision followed the signing of an executive order introducing new binding safeguards to address the points raised in the Schrems II decision. Notably, the new obligations were geared to ensure that data can be accessed by U.S. intelligence agencies only to the extent necessary and proportionate and to establish an independent and impartial redress mechanism to handle complaints from Europeans concerning the collection of their data for national security purposes. The European Commission will continually review developments in the United States along with its adequacy decision. Adequacy decisions can be adapted or even withdrawn in the event of developments affecting the level of protection in the applicable jurisdiction, and uncertainty surrounding the continuing independence of the redress mechanism in the United States could lead the EU to revisit or withdraw its adequacy decision. Future actions of EU data protection authorities are difficult to predict. Some customers or other service providers may respond to these evolving laws and regulations by asking us to make certain privacy or data-related contractual commitments that we are unable or unwilling to make. This could lead to the loss of current or prospective customers or other business relationships. Relatedly, following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, the GDPR was implemented in the United Kingdom as the U.K. GDPR with the U.K. GDPR sits alongside the amended U.K. Data Protection Act 2018, retains the GDPR in U.K. national law. Under the U.K. GDPR, companies not established in the United Kingdom but who process personal data in relation to the offering of goods or services to individuals in the United Kingdom, or to monitor their behavior will be subject to the U.K. GDPR—the requirements of which are (at this time) largely aligned with those under the EU GDPR and as such, may lead to similar compliance and operational costs with potential fines of up to £17.5 million or 4% of global turnover. In June of 2021, the European Commission issued a decision, which will sunset on June 27, 2025 without further action, that the United Kingdom ensures an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred under the EU GDPR from the EU to the United Kingdom. Billing and Government Reimbursement for Clinical Laboratory Services Medicare Medicare coverage is limited to items and services within the scope of a Medicare benefit category that are reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of an illness or injury. With respect to Medicare coverage, Palmetto GBA, the Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) responsible for administering Medicare’s molecular diagnostic services program (MolDX Program), issued a Local Coverage Determination (LCD) that provides coverage for our AVISE ® MTX test. The MAC responsible for administering Medicare claims submitted by our laboratory, Noridian Healthcare Solutions (Noridian), has adopted Palmetto’s positive coverage policy, along with a related local coverage article that identifies a unique billing identifier for this test. Under Medicare, payment for our laboratory tests is generally made under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) with payment amounts assigned to specific procedure billing codes. In April 2014, Congress passed the Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA), which substantially changed the way in which Medicare sets the payment amounts for clinical laboratory services. Under PAMA, laboratories that receive the majority of their Medicare revenue from payments made under the CLFS or the Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) are required to report to CMS, beginning in 2017 and every three years thereafter (or annually for "advanced diagnostic laboratory tests" (ADLTs)), private payor payment rates and volumes for their tests. Laboratories that fail to report the required payment information may be subject to substantial civil monetary penalties. As required under PAMA, CMS uses the rates and volumes reported by laboratories to develop Medicare payment rates for laboratory tests equal to the volume-weighted median of the private payor payment rates for the tests. 29 On June 23, 2016, CMS published the final rule implementing the reporting and rate-setting requirements under PAMA. For tests furnished on or after January 1, 2018, Medicare payments for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests (CDLTs) are based upon these reported private payor rates. For CDLTs assigned a new or substantially revised Current Procedural Terminology (CPT), because there is no comparable existing CDLT, CMS will set the initial payment rates using the gap-fill methodology, as under prior law. Initial payment rates for new ADLTs will be based on the actual list charge. Any reductions to payment rates resulting from the new methodology are limited to up to 10% per test per year in each of the years 2018 through 2020. As noted below, federal law has delayed implementation of further reductions until 2025, at which time the reduction cap will rise to 15% per test per year. PAMA did not impact Medicare reimbursement for AVISE ® CTD in 2024 compared to levels experienced in 2023. Additionally, we do not expect PAMA and changes to the PFS will not have a significant impact to Medicare reimbursement for AVISE ® CTD in 2025 compared to levels experienced in 2024. Since December 2019, Congress has passed a series of laws to modify PAMA’s statutory requirements related to the data reporting period and phase-in of payment reductions under the CLFS or CDLTs that are not ADLTs. Most recently, on September 26, 2024, Section 221 of the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025, was passed, and it delayed data reporting requirements for CDLTs that are not ADLTs as well as the phase-in of payment reductions. The next data reporting period for CDLTs that are not ADLTs will be January 1, 2026 through March 31, 2026, and will be based on the original data collection period of January 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019. After this data reporting period, the three-year data reporting cycle for these tests will resume (e.g., 2028, 2031, etc.). The same series of laws modified the phase-in of payment reductions resulting from private payor rate implementation so that a 0.0% reduction limit was applied for calendar years (CYs) 2021 through 2024, as compared to the payment amounts for a test the preceding year. The Further Continuing Appropriations and Other Extensions Act, 2025, further applied a 0.0% reduction limit for CY 2025. Consequently, payment may not be reduced by more than 15% per year for CYs 2026 through 2028 as compared to the payment amounts established for a test the prior year. PAMA also authorized the adoption of new, temporary billing codes and unique test identifiers for FDA-cleared or approved tests, as well as ADLTs. The American Medical Association's (AMA) CPT Editorial Panel approved a proposal to create a new section of billing codes called Proprietary Laboratory Analyses (PLA) codes, to facilitate implementation of this section of PAMA. The AMA publishes approved codes on a quarterly basis. Billing for diagnostic testing can be complicated. Depending on the billing arrangement and applicable law, we must bill various parties, such as commercial payors, Medicare, Medicaid, physicians, hospitals, employer groups and patients, all of which have different billing requirements. Additionally, compliance with applicable laws and regulations as well as internal compliance policies and procedures adds further complexity to the billing process. Changes in laws and regulations could negatively impact our ability to bill our clients or increase our costs. CMS also establishes new procedures and continuously evaluates and implements changes to the reimbursement process for billing government healthcare programs. Missing or incorrect information on test requisitions adds complexity to and slows the billing process, creates backlogs of unbilled tests, and generally increases the aging of accounts receivable and bad debt expense. Failing to bill timely or correctly may have negative consequences for us, such as not being reimbursed for our services or experiencing an increase in the aging of our accounts receivable, which could adversely impact our results of operations and cash flows. Failure to comply with applicable laws relating to billing federal healthcare programs could also lead to various penalties, including: ▪ overpayments and recoupments of reimbursement received; ▪ exclusion from participation in Medicare/Medicaid programs; ▪ asset forfeitures; ▪ civil and criminal fines and penalties; and ▪ the loss of various licenses, certificates and authorizations necessary to operate our business. Any of these penalties or sanctions could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or cash flows. Environmental and Other Regulatory Requirements Our laboratory is subject on an ongoing basis to federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling and disposal of regulated medical waste, hazardous waste and biohazardous waste, including chemicals, biological agents and compounds and blood and other tissue specimens. Typically, we use licensed or otherwise qualified outside vendors to dispose of this waste. However, many of these laws and regulations provide 30 for strict liability, holding a party potentially liable without regard to fault or negligence. As a result, we could be held liable for damages and fines if our, or others', business operations or other actions result in contamination of the environment or personal injury due to exposure to hazardous materials. Our costs for complying with these laws and regulations cannot be estimated or predicted and depends on a number of factors, including the amount and nature of waste we produce (which depends in part on the number of tests we perform) and the terms we negotiate with our waste disposal vendors. Since inception, we have disposed of all hazardous and/or medical waste that we produced across our entire business through environmentally sound methods. Our operations are also subject to extensive requirements established by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration relating to workplace safety for healthcare employees, including requirements to develop and implement programs to protect workers from exposure to blood-borne pathogens by preventing or minimizing any exposure through needle stick or similar penetrating injuries. Information About Our Directors and Executive Officers The following persons currently serve as the directors and executive officers of Exagen: Directors and Executive Officers Position Executive Officers John Aballi President, Chief Executive Officer and Director Jeffrey G. Black Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary Tina Nova, Ph.D. Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors Directors Ana Hooker Senior Vice President, Chief Laboratory Officer, Exact Sciences Corporation Scott Kahn, Ph.D. Director, Rady Children's Institute for Genomic Medicine Paul Kim Chief Financial Officer, Fulgent Genetics, Inc. Bruce Robertson, Ph.D. Managing Director, H.I.G Capital, LLC Frank Stokes Chief Financial Officer, Castle Biosciences, Inc. Environmental, Social and Governance Matters In 2022, we created our Environmental, Social and Governance Committee (ESG Committee) with the purpose, duties and responsibility of reviewing and recommending our programs, policies and practices relating to ESG issues. The ESG Committee meets formally at least annually and plans to make recommendations to our President and Chief Executive Officer to be presented to the audit committee of our board of directors (the Audit Committee) when warranted. For more information regarding our ESG initiatives, please refer to www.exagen.com/investors. Suppliers We rely on sole suppliers for the critical supply of reagents, equipment and other materials that we use to perform the tests that comprise our AVISE ® testing products. We also purchase components used in our AVISE ® testing product transportation kits from sole-source suppliers. Some of these items are unique to these suppliers and vendors. Financial Information We manage our operations and allocate resources as a single reporting segment. Financial information regarding our operations, assets and liabilities, including our net loss for the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023 and our total assets as of December 31, 2024 and 2023, is included in our Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Annual Report. Corporate Information We were incorporated under the laws of the state of New Mexico in 2002, under the name Exagen Corporation. In 2003, we changed our state of incorporation from New Mexico to Delaware by merging with and into Exagen Diagnostics, Inc., pursuant to which we changed our name to Exagen Diagnostics, Inc. In January 2019, we changed our name to Exagen Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at 1261 Liberty Way, Vista, California 31 92081. Our telephone number is (760) 560-1501. Our website address is www.exagen.com. The information contained in, or accessible through, our website is not part of, and is not incorporated by reference into, this Annual Report. Investors should not rely on any such information in deciding whether to purchase our common stock. Available Information We file Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, proxy and information statements and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Our filings with the SEC are available free of charge on the SEC’s website and on the "Investors" section of our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at www.sec.gov.