United States vs Caris Life Sciences

Anybody have any information about this?

http://pathologyblawg.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Caris-Amended-Complaint.pdf

It is familiar and makes me somewhat feel slightly ill, but it was refreshing to see that action is being taken. Just a note, however, that the fraud was not discovered by CMS but instead the case derived its impetus from the persistence of two (justifiably) disgruntled former employees. I suspect that many companies are just one disgruntled employee away from facing a similar experience. In this case, except for the monumental stupidity that these complainants' superiors evinced in ineptly dealing with their employees, the violations likely would never have been detected by CMS.

 

SHAM WOW!!!

 

Without question Caris is a rotten company with leadership of scum. However, having worked there, I can say that this lawsuit is ridiculous. Caris Life Sciences was always very careful about Medicare billing, the 14 day rule, collecting attestations and related issues. The old Caris pathology is where many billing infractions were committed. In the end, it really doesn't matter because if CMS brings Caris Life Sciences, David Halbert and all the scum down that work there then it will be karma because God knows that is one company that deserves to end. Ha.

 

What about Von Hoff, the so-called Key Opinion Leader, who gave us the nuclear explosion in clinical oncology with his EPO influence? Dozens of doctors agreed to "influence their colleagues to use Procrit" for unapproved indications such as cancer-related fatigue. Von Hoff was one of them. Collected not just advisory fees and perks from Ortho, but from about 30 other pharmaceutical firms, earning directors' fees for sitting on several companies' boards. The 2010 Karnofsky award winner from ASCO.

 

Well certainly there is enough suspect crap to go around through the entire industry. No question about that. But as it pertains to Caris Life Sciences I hope it all blows up in their face.

 

This lab service was aggressively marketed under the claim that it was “evidence-based.” A closer examination of the “evidence” however, revealed tangential references and cell-line data but little if any prospective clinical outcomes and positive and negative predictive accuracies. While the court case goes forward, it is not surprising that aggressively marketed, yet clinically unsubstantiated methodologies ran afoul of legal standards.