agreed, plus i don't get the sense that UBiome did as much wrong (if anything) as theranos. the feds are throwing dozens of small charges against UBiome rather than 1 big one. the theranos technology didn't work, whereas it seems UBiome has/had a bunch of viable patents. u can indeed sequence dna in poop. u can indeed correlate it to illness. results were consistent and useful. lots of companies are doing these things now. i wonder if UBiome was maybe too early to the space.
perhaps UBiome overstated company growth predictions, but don't hundreds of start-ups do that every year? they go out of business and are sometimes sued by investors, but it's not usually a crime. federal charges include some pretty subtle issues like waiving patient copays, issuing vouchers to spur patient interest, double billing.
for example, feds state the company charged insurance companies for tests that “were not validated and not medically necessary." to me that's a very strange criminal accusation. it's not usually a crime to ask the insurance company to pay for a novel or elective test (or procedure or medication). in my experience, insurance companies don't automatically pay for innovative tests. some they pay for, some they don't. they perform due diligence and routinely deny payment for tests that they decide are either experimental or not sufficiently validated, or not medically necessary. one prominent example is 23andme. they were told to stop providing medical diagnoses with their tests, so they switched to genealogical results. but the founders weren't arrested for having providing medical diagnoses. and if you now send the bill for your 23andme test to your insurance company, they simply deny it. the feds don't arrest the 23andme founders. another example: if you ask your insurance company to pay for viagra, they may decline to pay as "not medically necessary"; but, again, they don't arrest the executives of the manufacturer.
perhaps UBiome overstated company growth predictions, but don't hundreds of start-ups do that every year? they go out of business and are sometimes sued by investors, but it's not usually a crime. federal charges include some pretty subtle issues like waiving patient copays, issuing vouchers to spur patient interest, double billing.
for example, feds state the company charged insurance companies for tests that “were not validated and not medically necessary." to me that's a very strange criminal accusation. it's not usually a crime to ask the insurance company to pay for a novel or elective test (or procedure or medication). in my experience, insurance companies don't automatically pay for innovative tests. some they pay for, some they don't. they perform due diligence and routinely deny payment for tests that they decide are either experimental or not sufficiently validated, or not medically necessary. one prominent example is 23andme. they were told to stop providing medical diagnoses with their tests, so they switched to genealogical results. but the founders weren't arrested for having providing medical diagnoses. and if you now send the bill for your 23andme test to your insurance company, they simply deny it. the feds don't arrest the 23andme founders. another example: if you ask your insurance company to pay for viagra, they may decline to pay as "not medically necessary"; but, again, they don't arrest the executives of the manufacturer.