News, Analysis, Trends, Management Innovations for
Clinical Laboratories and Pathology Groups

Hosted by Robert Michel

News, Analysis, Trends, Management Innovations for
Clinical Laboratories and Pathology Groups

Hosted by Robert Michel
Sign In

Federal Government Bans Elizabeth Holmes from Participating in Government Health Programs for 90 Years

Theranos founder and former CEO continues down the path she began by defrauding her investors and lying to clinical laboratory leaders about her technology’s capabilities

In the latest from the Elizabeth Holmes/Theranos scandal, the federal government has banned Holmes from participating in government health programs for 90 years, according to a statement from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Many clinical laboratory leaders may find this a fitting next chapter in her story.

As a result of the ban, Holmes is “barred from receiving payments from federal health programs for services or products, which significantly restricts her ability to work in the healthcare sector,” ARS Technica reported.

So, Holmes, who is 39-years old, is basically banned for life. This is in addition to her 11-year prison sentence which was paired with $452,047,200 in restitution.

“The exclusion was announced by Inspector General Christi Grimm of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General,” ARS Technica noted, adding that HHS-OIG also “excluded former Theranos President Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani from federal health programs for 90 years.” This is on top of the almost 13-year-long prison sentence he is serving for fraud.

“The Health and Human Services Department can exclude anyone convicted of certain felonies from Medicare, Medicaid, and Pentagon health programs,” STAT reported.  

Inspector General Christi Grimm

“Accurate and dependable diagnostic testing technology is imperative to our public health infrastructure,” said Inspector General Christi Grimm (above) in an HHS-OIG statement. “As technology evolves, so do our efforts to safeguard the health and safety of patients, and HHS-OIG will continue to use its exclusion authority to protect the public from bad actors.” Observant clinical laboratory leaders will recognize this as yet another episode in the Elizabeth Holmes/Theranos fraud saga they’ve been following for years. (Photo copyright: HHS-OIG.)

Why the Ban?

“The Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cited Holmes’ 2022 conviction for fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud as the reason for her ban,” The Hill reported.

“False statements related to the reliability of these medical products can endanger the health of patients and sow distrust in our healthcare system,” Grimm stated in the HHS-OIG statement, which noted, “The statutory minimum for an exclusion based on convictions like Holmes’ is five years.

“When certain aggravating factors are present, a longer period of exclusion is justified,” the statement continued. “The length of Holmes’ exclusion is based on the application of several aggravating factors, including the length of time the acts were committed, incarceration, and the amount of restitution ordered to be paid.”

Rise and Fall of Elizabeth Holmes

Readers of Dark Daily’s e-briefs covering the Holmes/Theranos fraud saga will recall details on Holmes’ journey from mega success to her current state of incarceration for defrauding her investors.

In November 2022, she was handed an 11-year prison sentence for not disclosing that Theranos’ innovative blood testing technology, Edison, was producing flawed and false results. Theranos had “raised hundreds of millions of dollars, named prominent former US officials to its board, and explored a partnership with the US military to use its tests on the battlefield,” STAT reported.

To get Holmes physically into prison was a journey unto itself. At one point, evidence showed her as a potential flight risk. “In the same court filings, prosecutors said Holmes and her partner, William Evans, bought one-way tickets to Mexico in December 2021, a fact confirmed by her lawyers,” Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report revealed in “Elizabeth Holmes’ Appeal Questions Competence of CLIA Lab Director.”

Drama around her move into prison continued. “The former CEO’s attorneys are making last-minute legal moves to delay her prison sentence while she appeals her guilty verdict,” Dark Daily reported.

At the same time, Holmes appeared to be on a mission to revamp her public image.

“On May 7, The New York Times profiled Holmes in a massive, 5,000-word story that attempted to portray her as a flawed businessperson who now prefers a simpler life with her partner and two young children,” Dark Daily reported in “Former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes Fights Prison Sentence While Claiming She Was ‘Not Being Authentic’ with Public Image.”

In the Times piece, Holmes talked about her plans to continue to pursue a life in healthcare. “In the story, Holmes contended that she still thinks about contributing to the clinical laboratory field. Holmes told The Times that she still works on healthcare-related inventions and will continue to do so if she reports to prison,” The Dark Report covered in “Elizabeth Holmes Still Wants ‘To Contribute’ in Healthcare.”

In the meantime, her legal fees continued to mount beyond her ability to pay. “Holmes’ prior cadre of lawyers quit after she could not compensate them, The Times reported,” The Dark Report noted. “One pre-sentencing report by the government put her legal fees at more than $30 million,” according to The New York Times.

Apparently, this closes the latest chapter in the never-ending saga of Elizabeth Holmes’ fall from grace and ultimate conviction for defrauding her investors and lying to healthcare executives, pathologists, and clinical laboratory leaders.

—Kristin Althea O’Connor

Related Information:

HHS-OIG Issues Notice of Exclusion to Founder and CEO of Theranos, Inc.

Feds Bar Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes from Government Health Programs

Elizabeth Holmes Barred From Federal Health Programs For 90 Years

Elizabeth Holmes Banned from Federal Health Programs for 90 Years

Elizabeth Holmes Still Wants ‘To Contribute’ in Healthcare

Former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes Fights Prison Sentence While Claiming She Was ‘Not Being Authentic’ with Public Image

Elizabeth Holmes’ Appeal Questions Competence of CLIA Lab Director

Dark Report Summary on Elizabeth Holmes

Ex-Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes Takes Witness Stand in Her Own Defense: Admits to Using Pharma Giants’ Logos on Reports to Investors, But Claims No Intent to Deceive

Former CEO also testified that she believed company’s proprietary blood-testing technology could perform ‘any’ clinical laboratory blood test

One relevant question in the federal fraud trial of ex-Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes was whether she would testify on her own behalf. That question was answered shortly after the government rested its criminal fraud case against the former Silicon Valley clinical laboratory testing company founder. Holmes took the stand in her own defense, a risk her defense team hopes will pay off in her favor.

During her first three days of testimony leading up to the Thanksgiving holiday break, Holmes—who faces 11 counts of fraud and conspiracy related to her tenure as founder and CEO of Theranos—made headlines by admitting she did personally put the logos of pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Schering-Plough on reports she sent to Theranos investors and executives at Walgreens and Safeway. She expressed regret for doing so to the jury, but claimed her intent was not to deceive but to give credit to others.

“This work was done in partnership with these companies, and I was trying to convey that,” she testified, according to a trial coverage from Ars Technica.

When asked if she realized that others would assume the pharmaceutical companies—not Theranos—were the authors of the report, Holmes replied, “I’ve heard that testimony in this case, and I wish I’d done it differently.”

If found guilty, Holmes—who once claimed Theranos’ Edison proprietary blood-testing technology would to be able to complete as many as 200 clinical laboratory tests using a single finger-stick of blood—could face maximum penalties of 20 years in prison, a $2.75 million fine, and possible restitution.

Illustration depicting ex-Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes testifying in court

The illustration above depicts ex-Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes testifying on her own behalf. Former Santa Clara County prosecutor Steven Clark, JD, told The Mercury News, “(T)he best person to say what Elizabeth Holmes’ intent was is Elizabeth Holmes, and that’s why I think she’s taking the stand. … I think the jury will like her.” That remains to be seen. But there’s no doubt that Clinical Laboratory Directors should take a strong interest in the outcome of this trail. (Graphic copyright: Vicki Behringer/Reuters.)

Holmes Testifies She Believed the Edison Device Could Perform “Any” Blood Test

In its trail coverage, NPR described Holmes’ first three days of testimony “as having involved deflecting responsibility, pointing to the expertise of the Theranos board of directors, lab staff, and other company employees whom Holmes has suggested were close to how [Theranos’] blood analyzers worked.”

According to Reuters, Holmes’ defense team is arguing that Holmes’ always-rosy forecasts about her company’s technology and finances were based on her belief the proprietary Edison device worked as advertised, which, in turn, was based on feedback from pharmaceutical companies, her own employees, and the military.

During her testimony, Holmes compared a traditional blood-testing device to Theranos’ “3.0” device, which she said would reduce the human-error rate that can occur during blood sampling.

“If we had the ability to automate much of that process, we could reduce the error associated with traditional lab testing,” she told the court.

Reuters reported that Holmes told jurors her confidence in the Theranos device was in part due to how well the unit had performed in studies completed in 2008 and 2009, including those run by drug companies such as Novartis.

The Mercury News described Holmes as speaking with “confidence—and frequently a small smile”—during her opening day of testimony.

Asked by one of her lawyers, “Did you believe that Theranos had developed technology that was capable of performing any blood test?” Holmes responded, “I did.”

Holmes Testifies about Military’s Alleged Use of Edison Device

Prosecutors maintain that Holmes knew Theranos’ proprietary blood-testing technology had serious accuracy issues yet lied about its capabilities and use to lure investors. One of those false claims included allegedly stating the US military was using the Edison device on the battlefield. Earlier in the trial, CNBC reported, prosecution witness Brian Grossman, Chief Investment Officer at PFM Health Sciences, which invested $96 million into Theranos, testified he was told in a 2013 meeting with Holmes and Balwani that Theranos technology was being used in medical-evacuation helicopters.

Dark Daily covered court testimony on the military’s alleged use of the Theranos blood-testing device in “Prosecutors in Elizabeth Holmes’ Federal Fraud Trial Question Witnesses about Theranos’ Edison Technology and the Inaccurate Medical Laboratory Test Results It Produced.”

However, on the witness stand, Holmes described Theranos’ projects with the US military as much more limited in scope than the descriptions outlined by investors testifying for the prosecution.

According to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Holmes told jurors a 2010 partnership between Theranos and a US Army Institute of Surgical Research doctor in Texas looked into using the Theranos device to measure blood markers to detect kidney performance. A second project involved the military’s Africa Command, which was determining whether the device could withstand high temperatures. Holmes testified the devices used in Africa “held up well,” though some modifications were needed, and some issues were revealed with the touchscreen.

Should Holmes Have Testified on Her Own Behalf?

Trial experts maintain Holmes’ decision to testify in her own defense could backfire.

“It’s always a risk to put your client on because if they make a mistake they can sink the whole case,” former Santa Clara County prosecutor Steven Clark, JD, told The Mercury News. He added, “what’s at issue here is Elizabeth Holmes’ intent. And the best person to say what Elizabeth Holmes’ intent was is Elizabeth Holmes, and that’s why I think she’s taking the stand. She’s very charismatic. She’s really good on her feet. And I think the jury will like her.

“This is the pitch meeting of her life,” Clark added. “She’s going to be explaining herself to 12 people as to what was in her mind.”

Judge Drops One Count Due to Prosecution Error, Government Rests Its Case

Holmes is now charged with nine counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud after the government dropped one count of fraud from the indictment. According to WSJ coverage of the trial, US District Judge Edward Davila blocked a patient named in the indictment as “B.B.” from testifying because of a filing error by the prosecution. The judge’s decision resulted in the government dropping one count.

The government rested its case against Holmes on November 19 following testimony from independent journalist Roger Parloff, who wrote a flattering 2014 Fortune magazine story on Holmes. He later redacted his earlier writing in another Fortune article, titled, “How Theranos Misled Me.”

The government alleged Holmes used media publicity as part of her scheme to defraud investors, patients, and physicians. All totaled, 29 witnesses appeared for the prosecution, the WSJ reported

Former Theranos Chief Operating Officer Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani—Holmes’ one-time boyfriend—faces similar charges of defrauding patients, investors, and physicians. His trial is expected to begin in January 2022.

Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists who have watched the federal court proceedings with keen interest should expect the trial to wrap up at the conclusion of Holmes’ testimony, just in time for the Balwani fraud trial to begin. 

—Andrea Downing Peck

Related Information:

Elizabeth Holmes Claims She Forged Pharma Reports—for All the Right Reasons

Elizabeth Holmes Describes Limited Military Research Partnerships

Government Rest Its Case Against Elizabeth Holmes

Elizabeth Holmes Takes Witness Stand in Theranos Trial after Prosecution Rests its Case

Holmes Defends Belief in Theranos Technology at Her Fraud Trial

Elizabeth Holmes Testifies That Theranos Had ‘Successes’ with Pharmaceutical Companies

Hedge Fund Investor Tells Jurors in Holmes Trial That Theranos Lied about Finger-Prick Tech and Military Use

This CEO Is Out for Blood

How Theranos Misled Me

Another Former Theranos Clinical Laboratory Director Testifies in Holmes’ Fraud Trial about Irregularities with Proprietary Edison Blood-Testing Technology

Corporate Executives and Mega-Rich Investors Testify in Elizabeth Holmes’ Federal Fraud Trial That They Were Misled by Theranos’ Claims about the Edison Blood-Testing Device

Prosecutors in Elizabeth Holmes’ Federal Fraud Trial Question Witnesses about Theranos’ Edison Technology and the Inaccurate Medical Laboratory Test Results It Produced

MedStar Health Latest Victim in String of ‘Ransomware’ Attacks on Hospitals and Medical Laboratories That Reveal the Vulnerability of Healthcare IT

Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center makes headlines by opting to pay bitcoin ransom in order to quickly regain control of its computer systems

In recent weeks, hackers temporarily shut down MedStar Health—one of the biggest healthcare systems in the Washington, D.C. region—in the latest example of why cyberattacks are a threat not only to hospitals, but to anatomic pathology labs and clinical laboratories as well.

This latest incident is another example of a “ransomware” attack in which cybercriminals lock out computer users from accessing critical records and files. They then extort money by posting a digital ransom note warning users they must pay a ransom amount within a specific number of days if they want the digital key that will release their data.

(more…)

;