Healthcare industry watchdog Group Leapfrog says that if CMS suppresses the data “all of us will be in the dark on which hospitals put us most at risk”
For some time, hospitals and clinical laboratories have struggled with transparency regulation when it comes to patient outcomes, test prices, and costs. So, it is perplexing that while that Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) pushes for more transparency in the cost of hospital care and quality, the federal agency also sought to limit public knowledge of 10 types of medical and surgical harm that occurred in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.
And even though the CMS announced in its August 1 final rule (CMS-1771-F) that it was “pausing” its plans to suppress data relating to 10 measures that make up the Patient Safety and Adverse Events Composite (PSI 90), a part of the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program, it is valuable for hospital and medical laboratory leaders to understand what the federal agency was seeking to accomplish.
According to USA Today, medical complications at hospitals such as pressure ulcers and falls leading to fractures would be suppressed in reports starting next year. Additionally, CMS “also would halt a program to dock the pay of the worst performers on a list of safety measures, pausing a years-long effort that links hospitals’ skill in preventing such complications to reimbursement,” Kaiser Health News reported.
The proposed rule’s executive summary reads in part, “Due to the impact of the COVID-19 PHE on measure data used in our value-based purchasing (VBP) programs, we are proposing to suppress several measures in the Hospital VBP Program and HAC Reduction Program … If finalized as proposed, for the FY 2023 program year, hospitals participating in the HAC Reduction Program will not be given a measure score, a Total HAC score, nor will hospitals receive a payment penalty.”
In a fact sheet, CMS noted that its intent in proposing the rule was neither to reward nor penalize providers at a time when they were dealing with the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, new safety protocols for staff and patients, and an unprecedented rise in inpatient cases.
“We want the public to have complete trust in the data and will only be providing data we have determined has a high confidence of credibility and accuracy,” said CMS Chief Medical Officer Lee Fleisher, MD (above), Director of the CMS Center for Clinical Standards and Quality in a statement, Axios reported. Clinical laboratory leaders would find it more difficult to compare the performance of their hospitals against peer hospitals, should this proposed rule take effect as written. (Photo copyright: Lee Fleisher.)
Groups Opposed to the CMS Proposal
Like healthcare costs, quality data need to be accessible to the public, according to a health insurance industry representative. “Cost data, in the absence of quality data, are at best meaningless, and at worst, harmful. We see this limitation on collection and publication of data about these very serious safety issues as a step backward,” Robert Andrews, JD, CEO, Health Transformation Alliance, told Fortune.
The Leapfrog Group, a Washington, DC-based non-profit watchdog organization focused on healthcare quality and safety, urged CMS to reverse the proposal. The organization said on its website that it had collected 270 signatures on letters to CMS.
“Dangerous complications, such as sepsis, kidney harm, deep bedsores, and lung collapse, are largely preventable yet kill 25,000 people a year and harm 94,000,” wrote the Leapfrog Group in a statement. “Data on these complications is not available to the public from any other source. If CMS suppresses this data, all of us will be in the dark on which hospitals put us most at risk.”
Leah Binder, Leapfrog President/CEO, told MedPage Today she is concerned the suppression of public reporting of safety data may continue “indefinitely” because CMS does not want “to make hospitals unhappy with them.”
AHA Voices Support
Meanwhile, the American Hospital Association noted that the CMS “has made this proposal to forgo calculating certain hospital bonuses and penalties due to the impact of the pandemic,” Healthcare Dive reported.
“We agree with CMS that it would be unfair to base hospital incentives and penalties on data that have been skewed by the unprecedented impacts of the pandemic,” said Akin Demehin, AHA Senior Director, Quality and Safety Policy, in a statement to Healthcare Dive.
Though CMS’ plans to limit public knowledge of medical and surgical complications have been put on hold, medical laboratory leaders will want to stay abreast of CMS’ next steps with this final rule. Suppression of hospital harm during a period of increased demand for hospital transparency could trigger a backlash with healthcare consumers.
Shultz and fellow whistleblower Erika Cheung spoke to clinical laboratory scientists and attendees at the AACC Annual Scientific Meeting in Chicago
Two whistleblowers who raised concerns about the accuracy of Theranos’ blood test results offered thought-provoking comments on how the maligned company operated within current requirements for clinical laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) during last week’s American Association of Clinical Chemistry (AACC) Annual Scientific Meeting.
“The laboratory-developed test loophole that Theranos exploited should be closed,” said Tyler Shultz, who complained about Theranos’ inaccurate testing to regulators and TheWall Street Journal. Both Shultz and fellow Theranos whistleblower Erika Cheung were former employees at the now-defunct company.
“There are a lot of good use cases for LDTs, so they shouldn’t all be shut down,” Shultz continued. “But in general, I do think that if FDA-cleared clinical laboratory tests are available, those tests should be used instead of a homebrew test that hasn’t been held to the same standard that an FDA-cleared product has.”
Both trials examined the dubious claims that Theranos’ technology worked properly during the company’s blazing ascent with both Silicon Valley investors and the media from 2003 to 2014. The company said it could take a few drops of blood from a patient and successfully analyze the specimen using a machine called Edison, although Shultz, Cheung, and others questioned the results.
By 2015, problems with Theranos’ testing began to go public. The company shut down in 2018 after Holmes and Balwani were indicted.
However, proposed legislation is before Congress that would transfer oversight of LDTs to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The bill, known as the Verifying Accurate Leading-edge IVCT Development (VALID) Act, is now embedded in the larger Senate bill FDA Safety and Landmark Advancements Act of 2022 (S.4348).
Theranos’ saga did provide at least some inspiration for legislators filing the VALID Act. However, Cheung noted that trying to regulate all LDTs based the bad behavior of Theranos’ executives is a complex issue.
“Regulation is always tricky,” she said. “When you take an example of a very extraordinary case and a very specific circumstance [such as Theranos] and try to generalize that in terms of what is the behavior of all labs, you have to be careful.”
Proponents state FDA pre-market approval is needed for in vitro diagnostic tests because they are like medical devices. Opponents counter that the VALID Act would stifle innovation because of the costs involved with FDA review, particularly at academic medical laboratories.
Cheung questioned whether FDA review of Theranos’ technology would have averted patient and investor fraud by Holmes and Balwani.
“Would it have been the case that if it was necessary for the FDA to review Theranos’ LDTs, that it could have stopped it? Maybe,” Cheung told AACC attendees. “But you’re also dealing with a company that lied a lot. There were lots of things that Theranos had to submit to CLIA or to CMS in order to say that they were able to test certain types of patients.”
Shultz had similar feelings regarding a hypothetical FDA review of Theranos’ product, which will ring true with pathologists and clinical laboratory professionals who understand medical laboratory compliance and how the FDA regulate diagnostic instruments and kits.
“When you bring something to the FDA, they look at the data. They don’t go in and actually do third-party validation to see if your device works,” he said. “They just look at the data, and the [Theranos] data was largely manipulated. So, if you forced Theranos to go through the FDA process, I’m not sure if it would have prevented [the fraud].”
Nearly two years after passage of price transparency law, only a small number of the nation’s hospitals are fully compliant, according to two separate reports
Price transparency is a major trend in the US healthcare system. Yet, hospitals, physicians, clinical laboratories, and other providers have been reticent to design their websites so it is easy for patients to find prices in advance of clinical care. Now comes news that federal officials are ready to issue fines to hospitals that fail to comply with regulations mandating price transparency for patients.
Many of the largest healthcare networks claim that complying with federal hospital price transparency regulation is costly, time consuming, and provides no return on investment. Nevertheless, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is quite serious about enforcing price transparency laws, and to that end the agency has, for the first time, levied fines against two hospitals in Georgia that have not complied with the regulations.
As many pathologists and medical laboratory managers know, on January 1, 2021, a federal rule on price transparency for medical facilities went into effect. The rule requires hospitals—as well as clinical laboratories and other healthcare providers—to post a comprehensive list of their services and the pricing for those services on their websites, and to provide access to a patient-friendly tool to help consumers shop for 300 common services.
The CMS recently issued its first penalties to two hospitals located in Georgia for violating the law by not updating their websites or replying to the agency’s warning letters. The letters CMS sent to the two hospitals alleged there were several violations of the transparency rules, including the failure to post a listing of their charges on their websites and requested corrective action plans by the hospitals.
In November 2021, Northside Hospital Atlanta informed regulators that consumers should call or email the facility to obtain price estimates for services. Later in January 2022, during a “technical assistance call,” a hospital representative told CMS “the previous violations had not been corrected and, in fact, the hospital system had intentionally removed all previously posted pricing files,” according to a Notice of Imposition of a Civil Monetary Penalty letter CMS sent to Robert Quattrocchi, President and Chief Executive Officer, Northside Hospital Atlanta.
Under the rules of the Hospital Price Transparency law, each hospital operating in the US is required to provide clear, accessible pricing information online about the items and services they provide in two ways:
As a comprehensive machine-readable file listing all items and services.
In a display of shoppable services in a consumer-friendly format.
CMS fined Northside Hospital Atlanta $883,180 and Northside Cherokee Hospital $214,320 for noncompliance with the law. The penalties are calculated based on the size of the hospital and the length of time of the noncompliance—up to $300 per day. In addition, the facilities could endure further monetary penalties if they continue to fail to comply. The organizations will have 30 days to appeal the charges or have 60 days to remit payment for the fines.
Both hospitals are owned by Northside, a Georgia health system with five acute care hospitals, more than 250 outpatient facilities, over 4,100 providers, and 25,500 employees, according to the provider’s website.
“CMS expects hospitals to comply with the Hospital Price Transparency regulations that require providing clear, accessible pricing information online about the items and services they provide,” said Meena Seshamani, MD, PhD, Director of CMS, in a statement provided to Fierce Healthcare. “This enforcement action affirms the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to making healthcare pricing information accessible to people across the country and we are committed to ensuring that consumers have the information they need to make fully informed decisions regarding their healthcare.” Clinical laboratories also are required to comply with federal price transparency regulations. (Photo copyright: Modern Healthcare.)
Compliance with Price Transparency Laws Low
Analysis of the healthcare industry shows that many facilities are not in compliance with the transparency rules. In April, a report released by health IT firm KLAS Research, found that hospitals believe the transparency rule is too costly to implement and confusing to consumers, which helps explain the low compliance issues. KLAS surveyed 66 hospital revenue cycle leaders for their report.
“There are concerns about cost, data accuracy, and patient options of pricing tools; some respondents worry about patients’ ability to understand the displayed pricing data, and today, most patients are unaware online pricing information exists,” the report states. In addition, the report notes that “many organizations are not investing beyond the bare minimum requirements, and they don’t plan to do more until there is further clarity around the regulations and the expectations going forward.”
The KLAS report also noted that organizations are struggling to find the resources to comply with the price transparency rule and consider it a financial burden to continually add new employees and technology to become and remain in compliance. Many organizations see no merit in investing in a regulation that provides no return on that investment.
Another compliance report released in February by Patient Rights Advocate maintained that only 14.3% of the 1,000 hospitals they reviewed were in full compliance with the Hospital Price Transparency regulation. About 37.9% of the hospitals posted a sufficient detailing of service rates, but over half of those hospitals were noncompliant in other criteria of the rule, such as rates by insurer and insurance plans.
“We are now entering the second year since the Hospital Price Transparency rule became law, and compliance remains at very low levels,” according to the report. “The largest hospital systems are effectively ignoring the law, with no consequences.”
The Patient Rights Advocate analysis also found that a mere 0.5% of hospitals owned by the three largest hospital systems in the country—HCA Healthcare, CommonSpirit Health, and Ascension—were in full compliance of the law.
Notably, only two of the 361 hospitals owned by these three hospital systems were fully compliant. In addition, none of the 188 hospitals owned by HCA Healthcare, the largest for-profit hospital system in the country, were in compliance.
Hospitals Fail to Provide Consumers with Critical Information
The Patient Rights Advocate report found that the most significant reason for noncompliance was failure to post all payer-specific and plan-specific negotiated rates on their websites. They estimated that 85.7% of the 1,000 hospitals reviewed did not post a complete machine-readable file of standard charges, as required by the law.
“The lack of compliance by hospitals is about more than simply the failure to follow the legal requirements,” the report states. “It is also about the failure of hospitals to provide critically needed information to consumers so they can make better health decisions. Empowered with comparative price and quality information in advance of care, consumers, including employers and unions, can improve health outcomes while lowering costs by taking advantage of the benefits of competitive market efficiencies.”
With the CMS starting to issue fines for noncompliance, it is probable that more healthcare organizations will focus on adhering to the Hospital Price Transparency law. Since the transparency rules also apply to clinical laboratories, lab managers should be aware of the regulations and any further enforcement actions taken by the CMS.
Balwani’s lawyers opted not to have their client testify in his own defense and called only two witnesses, while Holmes’ defense team offered jurors the opportunity to hear her testimony
Elizabeth Holmes and Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani dreamed of revolutionizing the clinical laboratory blood-testing industry with their now defunct Theranos Edison device, which they claimed could perform multiple tests with a single finger prick of blood. Instead, they became the rare Silicon Valley executives to be convicted of fraud.
On July 7, ex-COO/President Balwani was convicted on all 12 counts of wire fraud and conspiracy charges in his federal fraud trial. Holmes, Theranos’ founder/CEO and former romantic partner to Balwani, avoided convictions six months ago in January on seven of the 11 counts she faced for her role in exaggerating the accuracy and reliability of the company’s Edison blood-testing device and providing false financial claims to investors.
“Once again, a jury has determined that the fraud at Theranos reached the level of criminal conspiracy,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Sean Ragan in a press release posted on Twitter following the verdict. “The FBI has spent years investigating this investment fraud scheme with our partners at USPIS and the FDA Office of Criminal Investigations. Lies, deceit, and criminal actions cannot replace innovation and success.”
Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani (above center), former COO/President of Theranos, is shown leaving the federal courthouse in San Jose, Calif., on July 7 after he was found guilty on all 12 counts of fraud, a verdict more severe than ex-CEO and Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes received in January for similar charges. Clinical laboratory directors and medical laboratory scientists have been closely monitoring both trails. (Photo copyright: Jim Wilson/The New York Times.)
Balwani’s Age and Experience May Have Worked Against Him
Michael Weinstein, JD, a former Justice Department prosecutor who is the Chair of White-collar Litigation at Cole Schotz, told The New York Times that Balwani’s age and his trial date—three months after Holmes’ conviction—worked against him. Balwani, 57, could not present himself as a young and inexperienced tech executive easily manipulated by those around him, as Holmes, 38, had attempted to do.
“Holmes could come off as a bit naïve, and [her defense team] tried to sell that,” Weinstein said of the former Stanford University dropout who founded Theranos in 2003 when she was 19.
In Holmes’ case the verdict was mixed, with jurors acquitting her of the patient fraud counts but unable to reach a decision on some of the investor fraud counts, Bloomberg reported.
Mr. Balwani, however, “came off as more of an experienced technology executive,” Weinstein added.
Weinstein pointed out that because the government’s case against Balwani mirrored its case against Holmes, prosecutors had time to refine their strategy before making a second appearance inside US District Court Judge Edward Davila’s San Jose courtroom.
“The streamlined presentation, the streamlined evidence, the streamlined narrative—all was beneficial for the government in the end,” he said.
Ever since opening arguments in March, Balwani’s legal team portrayed him to the jurors as a loyal partner who believed in Theranos’ technology and “put his money where his mouth is,” the Guardian noted.
Prosecutors, however, made the case that Balwani had a hands-on role in running the lab and was the source of Theranos’ overinflated financial projections.
Balwani invested about $15 million in the startup between 2009 and 2011 and never cashed in when his stake grew to $500 million. That money evaporated when Theranos collapsed.
In all, 24 witnesses testified against Balwani. He was ultimately convicted of all 12 counts he faced:
Two counts of conspiring with Holmes,
Six counts of defrauding investors, and
Four counts of patient fraud.
Major Differences in Trial Testimony
The Balwani trial made headlines due to COVID-19 pandemic related delays, but otherwise did not produce the news-generating moments that punctuated Holmes’ nearly four-month-long court appearance. Thirty-two witnesses appeared at the Holmes trial, including Secretary of Defense James Mattis, according to CNN.
Another significant difference in the two trials was that Holmes testified in her own defense. Holmes spent nearly 24 hours on the stand, CNN Business noted at that time, during which she cast the blame for Theranos’ failings on those around her, including Balwani.
ABC NewsRebecca Jarvis, host and creator of the podcast “The Dropout,” believes Balwani’s decision not to testify worked against him.
“[The abuse claims] did not come up at his trial, but during [Holmes’] seven days of testimony, they were a big portion of what she talked about,” Jarvis said in an ABC News “Start Here” podcast. “The biggest difference is that he didn’t take the stand to say, ‘I didn’t do this,’ or … raise his own objections to the claims against him.
“You think about a jury who is supposed to know nothing about any of [the defendant’s] backstory, and they’re shown these things like … case pictures of [Holmes] so much younger than [Balwani], supposedly having to rely on him for his expertise,” Jarvis added.
“You can imagine where the jury may have found that presentation more sympathetic than Sunny Balwani who had experience,” she said.
Text May Have Been Balwani’s Undoing
Balwani’s defense team called only two witnesses:
A naturopathic physician who used Theranos’ blood-testing lab, and
A technical consultant who Balwani’s legal team hired to assess the accessibility of patient data in Theranos’ Laboratory Information System (LIS), which the defense argued could have provided evidence of the accuracy of Theranos’ test results.
“This verdict also signals the jurors did not buy Balwani’s highly speculative argument that the database Theranos lost in 2018 would have proven his innocence,” Park said.
“We are obviously disappointed with the verdicts,” he said. “We plan to study and consider all of Mr. Balwani’s options including an appeal.”
Following the verdicts, Judge Davila raised Balwani’s bail to $750,000 and set a Nov. 15 sentencing date. Holmes is scheduled to be sentenced Sept. 26.
Balwani’s own words may have been his final undoing. During closing arguments, prosecutors again showed jurors a text message Balwani sent to Holmes in 2015, The New York Times reported.
“I am responsible for everything at Theranos,” he wrote. “All have been my decisions too.”
Clinical laboratory directors and medical laboratory scientists will no doubt continue to monitor the fallout from these two extraordinary federal fraud trials. There’s still much to learn about CLIA-laboratory director responsibility and how the government plans to prevent future lab testing fraud from taking place.
Theranos ex-COO and President Balwani will be sentenced on Nov. 15, while former CEO Elizabeth Holmes has her sentencing on Sept. 26
Observers within the clinical laboratory industry likely were not surprised to hear that Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani was convicted on Thursday of 12 counts of fraud related to his work at disgraced medical laboratory testing startup Theranos.
After all, Balwani’s conviction comes six months after a similar verdict for Elizabeth Holmes, the former founder and CEO of Theranos. The two were romantically involved during their time at the company.
A jury in San Jose deliberated for several days before reaching the guilty verdict against Balwani, 57, on a dozen counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. He is the former chief operating officer and president at the Theranos. Holmes was convicted of four counts in January.
“The jury concluded that Balwani perpetrated frauds on unsuspecting patients,” Stephanie Hinds, US Attorney for the Northern District of California, told the press after the verdict.
Balwani didn’t provide any comments to the two dozen or so reporters and photographers who followed him as he left the courthouse.
Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani leaves the courthouse after being convicted on 12 counts of fraud during his Theranos trial.
Balwani, Like Holmes, Faces 20 Years Behind Bars
Balwani will be sentenced on Nov. 15, reported NBC Bay Area. Holmes is scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 26. She and Balwani each face up to 20 years in prison on each count, although a judge could allow those terms to run concurrently for each individual.
At the core of Balwani’s trial was whether he knew that Theranos allegedly defrauded patients and investors about its proprietary Edison blood-testing machine. The government argued that Balwani realized the Edison analyzer did not work and that he should have informed investors about the poor accuracy of the equipment.
In the end, the jury did not believe Balwani’s contention that he was merely an investor who let Holmes steer business matters at Theranos. Jurors saw text messages between Balwani and Holmes that defied that defense strategy.
For example, in one text to Holmes, Balwani wrote, “I am responsible for everything at Theranos,” NBC Bay Area reported during the trial.
A profile on Balwani published in March 2022 by The Cut, a website affiliated with New York magazine, also pushed the idea he had influence. “While many questions remain about Balwani’s role in the Theranos scheme, he definitely wielded a lot of power at the company,” The Cut reported.
Balwani and Holmes were indicted by federal prosecutors in June 2018. The indictments followed a three-year investigation by the government, which occurred after a blockbuster series of articles by the Wall Street Journal that detailed complaints from whistleblowers who formerly worked at Theranos.
Balwani never took the stand in his own defense. However, during closing arguments, his attorney, Jeffrey Coopersmith, JD, said Holmes’ charm influenced Balwani, much like it did Theranos investors.
“There’s no reason why he wouldn’t have seen the exact same thing: the charisma, the drive, the vision, the goal to change diagnostic testing. And he bought into that vision,” Coopersmith told the jury, as reported by Bloomberg. “He bought into that vision not only with his time but also with his own money,” investing $4.6 million in Theranos.
Compared to Holmes’ trial, which attracted huge media attention from around the world, Balwani’s proceedings occurred to much less hype and fanfare, given he was not as well known as Holmes to the general public and press.
—Scott Wallask
Not a Dark Daily E-Briefing Service Subscriber?
Sign up for our free email service that keeps you informed on the top laboratory industry’s important events like this one three times a week!
‘Balwani is no Johnny Depp,’ says an expert on juror behavior, as prosecution and defense rest in fraud trial of the former executive of the now-defunct lab test company
Clinical Laboratory directors and pathologists continue to focus like a laser beam on the trials of former founders and executives of the now-defunct blood test company Theranos. But as the criminal fraud trial of ex-president and COO Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani comes to a close, legal experts maintain the 57-year-old businessman may face an uphill battle to win an acquittal.
Balwani faces 12 counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud while serving as second in command at Theranos, the former Silicon Valley medical laboratory test startup. The fraud trials of Balwani and Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes have made headlines for more than a year as the two once-high-flying executives face a reckoning for allegedly defrauding patients, investors, and physicians about their proprietary Edison blood-testing device, which they claimed could conduct hundreds of blood tests using a finger-prick of blood.
Before resting their case, Balwani’s defense team called only two witnesses: information-technology consultant Richard Sonnier III, and naturopathic physician Tracy Wooten, NMD, of Arizona, who sent more than 100 patients to Theranos.
According to The Wall Street Journal(WSJ), Wooten “backtracked some of her support for Theranos on the stand.”
The WSJ reported that Sonnier’s testimony “had been hotly litigated by attorneys,” and that US District Judge Edward Davila ruled in May that Sonnier would be permitted to testify—with limitations—about the Theranos Laboratory Information System (LIS), which contained patient test results.
Theranos LIS Not Accessible to Government Prosecutors
Sonnier was hired by Balwani’s legal team to assess the accessibility of data held in the LIS, which the defense believed would have provided evidence of Theranos test accuracy.
The WSJ noted that in 2018, the year Balwani and Holmes were indicted, the government subpoenaed a copy of the LIS, which Theranos provided. However, the LIS data was delivered on an encrypted hard drive.
“Not only was the hard drive itself encrypted, but the data it contained was also encrypted with a separate passcode required,” the WSJ wrote. “The government didn’t have the passcode to access the data, and a day or two after sending the hard drive to US attorneys, Theranos officials ordered the entire original database dismantled, according to court testimony.”
The WSJ reported that Sonnier testified he was unable to access the encrypted data on a backup hard drive despite having a list of possible passcodes found in Theranos documents. Sonnier also testified that it would have been “very straightforward” to reassemble the original LIS and “recover that data.” The missing password wouldn’t be an issue, Sonnier testified.
Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani (above) ex-president and COO of now defunct blood test startup Theranos, faces 12 counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. In an interview with Insider, an expert in conducting jury research, focus groups, witness preparation, and jury selections said that “both the evidence and the way Balwani is perceived would affect his chances of being acquitted.” And that, “He has a lot of problems that [Elizabeth Holmes] didn’t have. He kind of fits the part from a juror’s standpoint.” Clinical laboratory directors will learn much from how Balwani’s role as the primary decision-maker in the Theranos lab is perceived by the jury. (Photo copyright: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images/Newsweek.)
The Prosecution Rests
Federal prosecutors rested their case last month after calling more than 24 witnesses. The government alleges Balwani worked closely with Holmes and conspired with her to defraud investors and patients about the startup’s blood testing technology. They allege he knew about the accuracy and reliability problems that plagued Theranos’ Edison blood-testing device.
Holmes was convicted in January on three of the nine fraud counts and one of two conspiracy counts. She was acquitted on four counts related to defrauding patients, one charge of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and three charges of wire fraud.
While prosecutors failed to persuade jurors that Holmes intentionally sought to defraud patients, Bloomberg legal reporter Joel Rosenblatt told the Bloomberg Law Podcast he believes Balwani is “inherently more vulnerable” on the patient-related fraud counts because he “oversaw” the operation of Theranos’ clinical laboratories.
“As a result of that role, [Balwani] was more aware of not only the faulty Theranos blood test results, but all the problems that employees were pointing out about those results,” Rosenblatt added. “So, he was the first high-level executive to be dealing with those complaints.”
Rosenblatt noted that Balwani’s defense centers not only on trying to show that Theranos’ proprietary blood-testing machine worked, but that it “works maybe well enough or worked as well as other [medical] laboratories.” He said Balwani also maintains that Holmes, as CEO and founder, was in charge long before he joined Theranos as president.
“It’s a difficult argument to make because all the emails show how cooperative they were, how closely they worked together. They were intimately involved but they were working side by side for years and really during the years where all the money started coming in,” Rosenblatt said in the podcast.
“He has a lot of problems that [Elizabeth Holmes] didn’t have,” Taylor said. “He kind of fits the part from a juror’s standpoint. He’s got the power, the authority, he’s got the personal traits that make the allegations more credible from a perceptual standpoint for the jury.”
In contrast, Taylor says, “People don’t love Elizabeth Holmes, but I think what she had going for her was that she pitched herself as a true believer in the company. She was the voice and the face of Theranos.”
‘Balwani is not Johnny Depp’
While a jury recently awarded actor Johnny Depp significantly more damages than actress Amber Heard in their well-publicized defamation trial, Taylor maintains jurors are unlikely to view Balwani as a sympathetic figure.
“Sunny Balwani is not Johnny Depp. He doesn’t have the halo that Johnny Depp has, or the fan base,” Taylor said. “He does not present as that type of person, so I don’t know that the jurors will have any sympathy towards him. And I think they would actually be more inclined to believe Holmes’ allegations.”
The Theranos fraud trials of Holmes and Balwani continue to capture the attention of clinical laboratory directors and pathologists who are now witnessing the final chapters in the downfall of the one-time Silicon Valley power couple.
