When a lab runs a genetic test, it isn’t just testing the patient’s sample. Built into every test run is a “control” sample with a known, expected result, run alongside the real one specifically to prove the equipment and chemistry are working correctly that day. According to the Justice Department, a California skin-testing company reported cancer results to patients, and billed Medicare for them, in stretches when its own controls had stopped functioning as expected. The case, resolved through a federal settlement in August, turns on the gap between what a control sample is supposed to catch and what actually got reported to patients.

What a Positive Control Range Is Supposed to Prove

A positive control is a sample with a known outcome that should reliably come back positive if a test is working correctly. Labs set a validated range for what that control result should look like; if the control falls outside that range, the entire test run is considered unreliable, no matter what the patient’s own sample shows, because there’s no way to confirm the equipment read the patient’s sample correctly either.

This is a routine part of how the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments program, which the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administers for essentially every lab in the country that tests human specimens, expects labs to operate. CMS’s own description of the CLIA standards ties quality-control requirements directly to the accuracy and reliability of the result a patient eventually receives, regardless of how sophisticated the underlying technology is.

---

Free retirement updates: Miss an enrollment or claim deadline and it may be gone. Our free Retirement Shield newsletter keeps readers ahead of the ones that matter. Get the free newsletter.

The Two Specific Failures the Government Describes

The Justice Department’s account lays out two separate windows where the company’s own quality checks were compromised. From October 2022 to March 2023, the lab had switched to a positive control range for one of its test’s two key melanoma markers that had never been validated in the first place, so there was no scientific basis for trusting that a passing control result actually meant the test was working. Separately, from January 2020 to February 2022, the company billed Medicare for tests run on patient samples that didn’t contain enough genetic material, or RNA, to be reliably tested at all, yet the lab reported a positive or negative result to the patient regardless of that shortfall.

In both situations, according to the Justice Department’s press release, the company did not retract the affected results once concerns were raised internally, and it did not adequately refund Medicare for the claims tied to those tests. The government’s account does not say how many of the affected results were later shown to be wrong, only that the process producing them couldn’t be trusted at the time.

Why a Patient Had No Way to Tell the Difference

Household cut: a lab result arrives on paper looking identical whether the control sample passed or failed. A patient reading “negative” on a melanoma test has no way to know whether that result came from a fully validated run or one where the lab’s own internal check had already signaled a problem with the equipment or the sample. That asymmetry, someone relying entirely on a mailed result with no visible red flag attached to it, is what separates a quality-control failure from an ordinary billing dispute: the party harmed isn’t just Medicare’s trust fund, it’s whoever built a medical decision, or peace of mind, on a number the lab itself couldn’t fully stand behind.

How This Surfaced, and What Happens to Oversight From Here

Routine inspection didn’t catch this; a lawsuit did. The case was resolved as part of a qui tam action filed by a former company employee under the False Claims Act’s whistleblower provisions, and the government’s roughly $5 million recovery moves through the company’s bankruptcy estate as an unsecured claim rather than a fine paid directly by an operating business. That path, a whistleblower rather than a routine CLIA inspection, is worth noting because it means the failure could plausibly have continued undetected if no employee had come forward. Patients who want to report a testing concern of their own, at this lab or any other Medicare-billing lab, can do so directly through the HHS Office of Inspector General’s fraud reporting line, the same office that investigated this case.

What the Record Doesn’t Say

The settlement resolves allegations, not a judicial finding; the company agreed to the resolution rather than admit fault, and the Justice Department’s release specifies that “there has been no determination of liability.” The government also hasn’t disclosed how many of the affected patients had a false or unreliable result rather than simply an unvalidated one, only that the control and RNA failures made the process behind the results unreliable during those specific windows. For a household weighing a skin-cancer screening choice today, the more durable lesson than any single company’s name is the one CMS’s own quality rules point to directly: a test result is only as trustworthy as the control sample sitting next to it on the day it was run.

This article was produced with AI assistance and reviewed by a human editor. Figures are linked to their primary sources; where a claim could not be verified from the public record, we say so.

More Financial Reading

• Adding someone to your bank account: tax traps and smart moves
• The ideal retirement withdrawal rate so your savings actually last