Stone Clinical Diagnostics

You mean lower pricing than yours. Pass through billing markets minimal, but they competitive and it’s usually the smaller labs (under the OIG radar) who take chances with below cost of testing/below fair market value pricing. The compliance teams at both labs would not let pricing go through if it’s not 20-30% above cost of testing. Cost of testing is lower with large labs based on fundamental principles of economics. Although you implied an anti-kickback infringement, there is no inducement if the physician pricing is above cost of testing.

Actually that is not what I mean. Yes it is true that Q and LCA have advantages because of their size. They likely have a lower cost of testing overall that is true. That gives them more pricing power when it comes to being able to go lower in some cases.

The predatory pricing is evident in the fact that they use this advantage while at the same time offering pricing to hospitals and physician practices near but not below the loss threshold. At the same time they take the contracted private plan business for which they bill their discounted contracted rates. Finally they take Medicare and Medicaid and bill at much higher rate to offset the low profit and break even billing for hospitals, physicians , and private plans. I will give you that they don't technically lose money on the non government billing but they don't make money either. They use their size advantage to ride a fine line between all out illegal and just "gray area". This is a fact, it is anti-competitive, and you can spin it all you want but it is just spin.

 

That’s just not my experience. The larger the company, the larger the shareholder base, the larger the commitment to compliance due to the increased fiduciary risk. One.

Two, the limited % of the overall all fraud budget for clinical lab, means the OIG will spend most of its oversight on the nationals. Small labs push the boundaries of compliance knowing they’re most likely under the OIG radar. Small labs also don't have a 25-year long Corporate Integrity Program with the federal government.

 

You just agreed that their size advantage allows them to offer better pricing. How is predatory then if you said in the same paragraph that it is not illegal pricing? Are you broadly defining “predatory” as legal, but aggressive pricing? If so, the LabCorp is guilty of that charge. Quest? No so much – evident in their 11-year hiatus from the UHC contract.

First, Medicare carriers have set fee schedules, so they’re not getting inflated reimbursement from federal plans. You might be speaking of labs bundling or ordering unnecessary tests. (?) More importantly, what you just said is the “very thing” of a violation of the AKS. To summarize: Q & LCA offer break-even pricing to buy contracts and overcharge Medicare to offset this? Do you know how much your whistleblower earnings would be for this inducement if this was remotely true?

[/QUOTE] I will give you that they don't technically lose money on the non government billing but they don't make money either.

They use their size advantage to ride a fine line between all out illegal and just "gray area". [/QUOTE]

Just a correction in your logic; it’s impossible to have a fine line between something “all out illegal” and gray. The line would have to be illegal/legal or questionably illegal/barely legal.

[/QUOTE] This is a fact, it is anti-competitive, and you can spin it all you want but it is just spin.[/QUOTE]

So, you’re saying you can’t compete with the national labs and blaming the advantages of their size? Their business model? If so, take it up with the FTC.

 

I will give you that they don't technically lose money on the non government billing but they don't make money either. They use their size advantage to ride a fine line between all out illegal and just "gray area". [/QUOTE]

Just a correction in your logic; it’s impossible to have a fine line between something “all out illegal” and gray. The line would have to be illegal/legal or questionably illegal/barely legal.

[/QUOTE] This is a fact, it is anti-competitive, and you can spin it all you want but it is just spin.[/QUOTE]



now we are getting somewhere. do you see how seriously gray and convoluted it all really is.
there will be no successful whistleblower actions though (even when Q or LCA steps legitimately out of bounds and I assure you that they occasionally do) because the Q and LCA legal teams can afford to muddy the water indefinitely with case history, ambiguous language, and the perpetual filing of briefs.
i never said we could do anything about it, and you are correct that NO ONE can really compete with these two which is where the trouble really begins.

 

[/QUOTE] do you see how seriously gray and convoluted it all really is. [/QUOTE]

No I don’t. There is no “seriously gray” area in compliance. Carefully established Safe Harbor guidelines ensure this.

[/QUOTE] there will be no successful whistleblower actions though (even when Q or LCA steps legitimately out of bounds and I assure you that they occasionally do) because the Q and LCA legal teams can afford to muddy the water indefinitely with case history, ambiguous language, and the perpetual filing of briefs. [/QUOTE]

Do you have examples of such maneuvers? “Case history” does NOT muddy the waters or change the laws. It’s use to resolve ambiguities (the polar opposite) via past legal decisions. Ambiguous language as it applies to the AKS? Examples please. Your assertion here, is Q & LCA break laws because their legal team can muddy the waters. That they routinely act immorally, illegally and in a fiduciarily reckless nature due to the power of their legal teams.

Nothing is further from the truth. If they even flirt with exclusion from the Medicare program, this would be a death blow to a multi-billion-dollar market cap. It defies common sense.

[/QUOTE] i never said we could do anything about it, and you are correct that NO ONE can really compete with these two which is where the trouble really begins.[/QUOTE]

I never said no one can compete with them – YOU are the one who mentioned anti-competitiveness. And, there is a way to compete against them, but it’s not complaining about their size advantage or purporting vague theories about their legal teams overwhelming the justice system, providing cover to their unbridled lawlessness.

 

do you see how seriously gray and convoluted it all really is. [/QUOTE]

No I don’t. There is no “seriously gray” area in compliance. Carefully established Safe Harbor guidelines ensure this.

[/QUOTE] there will be no successful whistleblower actions though (even when Q or LCA steps legitimately out of bounds and I assure you that they occasionally do) because the Q and LCA legal teams can afford to muddy the water indefinitely with case history, ambiguous language, and the perpetual filing of briefs. [/QUOTE]

Do you have examples of such maneuvers? “Case history” does NOT muddy the waters or change the laws. It’s use to resolve ambiguities (the polar opposite) via past legal decisions. Ambiguous language as it applies to the AKS? Examples please. Your assertion here, is Q & LCA break laws because their legal team can muddy the waters. That they routinely act immorally, illegally and in a fiduciarily reckless nature due to the power of their legal teams.

Nothing is further from the truth. If they even flirt with exclusion from the Medicare program, this would be a death blow to a multi-billion-dollar market cap. It defies common sense.

[/QUOTE] i never said we could do anything about it, and you are correct that NO ONE can really compete
with these two which is where the trouble really begins.[/QUOTE]

I never said no one can compete with them – YOU are the one who mentioned anti-competitiveness. And, there is a way to compete against them, but it’s not complaining about their size advantage or purporting vague theories about their legal teams overwhelming the justice system, providing cover to their unbridled lawlessness.[/QUOTE]

Okay, there is no reasoning with you. I will admit that the sheer size and financial strength of these two behemoths gives them an advantage that is ultimately insurmountable. You cannot for one second even admit that they sometimes do things wrong and that compliance has not always been front and center. Come on. Why do you defend them so vigilantly? And by the way, when attorneys reference cases from the past they do so with the intent to get the judge/jury to gather a different view of a prosecution or a defense. It is absolutely meant to cast a shadow of doubt on one legal perspective or another. If that doesn't muddy the water, what does?

As far as reckless behavior, one not need to look any further than the identity hack. There is a "fiduciary" duty to uphold the HIPAA rules, and despite having as close to unlimited resources as an organization could have they certainly could have been construed to have acted "recklessly" there. Let's just start with that.

 

[/QUOTE] Okay, there is no reasoning with you.[/QUOTE]

I’ve done nothing but reason with you. That’s your problem - you can’t defend your absolute position concerning Q and LCA. You characterize them as using their size to be purposely lawless, and I’ve refuted that argument with facts and common sense.

[/QUOTE] I will admit that the sheer size and financial strength of these two behemoths gives them an advantage that is ultimately insurmountable. [/QUOTE]

No! Why so defeatist? They are surmountable. In both the short and long term. However, your negative selling is both specious and self-defeating. Given your detestable view of the national labs, and your concession that they can’t ultimately be beat, why are you in this sector?

[/QUOTE] You cannot for one second even admit that they sometimes do things wrong and that compliance has not always been front and center. Come on.[/QUOTE]

You have a bad habit of mischaracterizing. I never said Q or LCA were perfect operating companies. I’ve only said argued that compliance is in fact front and center due to their long-standing Corporate Integrity agreement, the death blow as a result from being excluded from Medicare and the crazy risk this imposes to their shareholders.

[/QUOTE] Why do you defend them so vigilantly?[/QUOTE]

I’m defending the truth and common sense vigilantly. Your characterization of them is so off base, I feel compelled to correct it.

[/QUOTE] And by the way, when attorneys reference cases from the past they do so with the intent to get the judge/jury to gather a different view of a prosecution or a defense. It is absolutely meant to cast a shadow of doubt on one legal perspective or another. If that doesn't muddy the water, what does?[/QUOTE]

That’s just not the way case law works. It’s simply “precedent.” Again, past decisions are used to clarify – not muddy. I asked you for an example of Q and LCA muddying the waters with this maneuver. Crickets, I guess.

[/QUOTE] As far as reckless behavior, one not need to look any further than the identity hack. There is a "fiduciary" duty to uphold the HIPAA rules, and despite having as close to unlimited resources as an organization could have they certainly could have been construed to have acted "recklessly" there. Let's just start with that.[/QUOTE]

LOL! No company is impervious to hacks, and it won’t be the last time this happens to large companies. You seem a bit desperate. What’s your point here? That Quest was willfully negligent? That, because this happened, they’re a bad company? Your reasoning is baffling.

 

I am done. Good Luck Mr./Ms. Quest VP/Attorney or LCA, whichever it is.

By the way, the Legislative investigations are looking into possible negligence.
Willful? We will never know.

 

Fortunately, there are really good and intelligent people working at Stone that have continued to steer that ship in a positive direction. Unfortunately, the CEO can not get out of his own way and has zero respect or dignity. He carries little value for anyone but himself. Sad!

 

What do you mean by this? Is he ripping off employees?customers?partners?

 

How do you know this? Do you work for them or what?

 

Just ask Christopher who their Medical Director currently is. Oh wait he has never even been to Stone. Ghost.
Just ask Christopher about running out of reagents.... again.
Just ask Christopher about covering up StoneWash non-validation but getting reimbursed for it.

 

Can you show us the Stryker binder again Christopher?

 

I heard that the famous Ed Klapp is now their VP of Sales. What a breath of fresh air and bright future ahead. He will bring in tons of volume from his long list of distributors. I can't wait to learn from this "king of labs". 2020 is going to be a great year for us!!! Welcome aboard Ed!!!!

 

That is awesome news for Stone. Welcome to the team Ed. I am hoping he brings his billing buddy Dakota over so we can all make lots and lots of money. That would make the dream team here. Yes the future is so bright I think I do need to have shades!!!

 

Ed Klapp is your guy?

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/comp21791.pdf

 

That is him and his daddy. Check out his daddy's offender rap sheet. You picked a sure winner here!!!

 

If this is true we are screwed. Many of my physicians know about Christopher’s past and present. When they find out we hired Ed we are doubly screwed. This business should be killing it. With proper leadership we would be. Can Christopher get out of the way and let the adults run this company? All he has to do is hire / rehire the quality people that recently left. Please stay in you frosted glass room. We won’t bother you so you can put your full attention on ogling the women and men walking down Baronne or the work you are putting into the Stryker and Tiffany lawsuits.

 

I come here to read this thread and I am constantly in awe. If half is true how is this company still open? I researched the ceo (wild) and the new sales director (scam artist). Then I looked into stonewash. Fake test on the level of theranos. How is stone open?