The former Theranos CEO is barred from receiving payments from federal health program.

Elizabeth Holmes—the disgraced and incarcerated founder of the infamous blood-testing startup Theranos—is barred from participating in federal health programs for nine decades, according to an announcement from the health department Friday.

The exclusion means that Holmes is barred from receiving payments from federal health programs for services or products, which significantly restricts her ability to work in the health care sector. It also prevents her from participating in Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs. With a 90-year term, the exclusion is lifelong for Holmes, who is currently 39.

The exclusion was announced by Inspector General Christi Grimm of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General.

Holmes is serving an 11-year, three-month sentence for defrauding investors of her blood-testing startup, Theranos, which she founded in 2003. At the time, Holmes claimed to have developed proprietary technology that could perform hundreds of medical tests using just a small drop of blood from a finger prick. The remarkable claim helped her drive the company’s valuation to a stunning $9 billion in 2014, and set up lucrative partnerships. But, in reality, the technology never worked. The company collapsed in 2018, and she was convicted of fraud in 2022.

  • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
    167·
    10 months ago

    It also prevents her from participating in Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs.

    This is pretty unfair imo. I don’t think she would going to used them, but still.

    • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      23·
      10 months ago

      It’s unclear what they mean by “participate” in this context. The sentence right before that is talking about being barred from receiving payments from federal health programs, so I’m wondering if they mean “participating” on the provider’s side, rather than the patient’s.

      Don’t really care enough to look into it though.

      • QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        10 months ago

        From the official OIG website:

        HHS-OIG has authority under 1128(a) of the Social Security Act to exclude from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other Federal health care programs individuals who have been convicted of certain crimes, including criminal offenses related to health care fraud. An exclusion is an administrative sanction that protects Federal health care programs and the people they serve by prohibiting payment for any health care item or service furnished, ordered, or prescribed by an excluded person.

        https://oig.hhs.gov/newsroom/news-releases-articles/hhs-oig-issues-notice-of-exclusion-to-founder-and-ceo-of-theranos-inc/

        I could see it argued both ways. It looks like this is meant to prohibit her from working with or receiving payment from any group in this sector.

        From the wording it’s difficult to tell if this means she also won’t be able to be reimbursed for her own personal healthcare costs by any of these programs.

        And if anyone really wants to get into the legalese: https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title11/1128.htm

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      7·
      10 months ago

      It’s not about fair, it’s about sending the message that you don’t fuck with rich people’s money, especially not in a way that publically embarrasses them.

    • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
      62·
      10 months ago

      Imagine she’s 80, broke, alone and is struggling. She’s already served her time, but she’s still not allowed health services? Seems kinda fucked, and it’s fucked that the government has access to this slippery slope of banning convicts from health services

    • Eezyville@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1·
      10 months ago

      If they don’t want her to participate in Medicare and Medicaid then go all the way and not allow her to pay into it with her tax dollars. This seems like cruel and unusual punishment.

      EDIT: It also seems arbitrary because I don’t think this was part of her sentence.