Personalis Inc

Company Background

Personalis develops and markets advanced cancer genomic tests and analytics. Our tests and analytics are used by pharmaceutical companies for translational research, biomarker discovery, the development of personalized cancer therapies, and we expect in the near future, for clinical trial enrollment. Our advanced tests are used by physicians to detect cancer recurrence, monitor cancer evolution, and uncover insights for therapy selection. We also provide sequencing and data analysis services to support population sequencing initiatives.

We perform large-scale, high quality next-generation sequencing ("NGS") in our Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (“CLIA”) certified and College of American Pathologists (“CAP”) accredited 100,000 square foot laboratory located in Fremont, California. We were incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware in 2011 under the name Personalis, Inc. and became a publicly-traded company in 2019.

Products

For pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies

NeXT Personal

NeXT Personal is a tumor-informed liquid biopsy test for detection of minimal residual disease ("MRD") and recurrence in cancer. It delivers industry-leading, ultra-high analytical sensitivity, which we believe allows for detection of cancer earlier than other technologies. NeXT Personal answers the questions: Does the patient have MRD? What are the kinetics of circulating tumor DNA ("ctDNA")?

ImmunoID NeXT

ImmunoID NeXT is a tissue-based test that combines whole exome (DNA) and whole transcriptome (RNA) sequencing data with advanced analytics to provide a multi-dimensional view of the tumor and the tumor microenvironment from a single sample. It is designed to enable the development of more efficacious cancer immunotherapies and the next-generation of composite biomarkers to better predict patient response. ImmunoID NeXT answers the question: What are the composite biomarkers in the tumor and the tumor microenvironment?

For cancer patients

NeXT Personal Dx

NeXT Personal Dx is a tumor-informed liquid biopsy test for detection of MRD and recurrence in cancer. We believe it provides for earlier detection of cancer than other technologies and has been shown to detect cancer recurrence ahead of traditional imaging. It is designed to aid decision making throughout a patient's cancer journey. NeXT Personal Dx involves an initial test (whole genome sequencing of a tumor and normal sample) and subsequent blood/plasma tests based on a tumor-informed personalized panel for each patient. NeXT Personal Dx answers the questions: Does the patient have MRD? Has the cancer returned?

NeXT Dx

NeXT Dx is a comprehensive tumor profiling test that unlocks the entire exome (DNA) and transcriptome (RNA) with matched tumor-normal analysis. We believe it improves chances of finding an effective therapy or clinical trial. NeXT Dx answers the question: What are the actionable therapies and clinical trials for the patient?

For diagnostics companies and population sequencing initiatives

WES

We perform whole exome sequencing ("WES") of cancer tissue and matched blood samples for diagnostic companies as an input to their products.

WGS

We perform whole genome sequencing ("WGS") on human samples for research projects, such as population sequencing initiatives.

Markets and Distribution

Our customers include pharmaceutical companies, biopharmaceutical companies, diagnostics companies, universities, non-profits, government entities, and patients. We sell through a small direct sales force, organized by geography. In November 2023, we entered into an agreement with Tempus AI, Inc. (formerly known as Tempus Labs, Inc., and referred to herein as "Tempus") to commercialize NeXT Personal Dx in the clinical diagnostics market. As a result, we will also leverage the sales force of Tempus beginning in 2024. The principal markets for our products are in the United States, Europe (including the U.K.), and Asia-Pacific, which accounted for 90%, 8%, and 2% of our revenue for the year ended December 31, 2023, respectively.

Clinical Evidence and Reimbursement

Generating clinical evidence is critical for driving adoption of our tests in the clinical market (i.e., for cancer patients). To this end, one of our key strategies is working with a growing number of leading cancer centers and world-class academic research institutions to build and publish the clinical evidence-base to support our products and our key indications. Because of the ultra-high analytical sensitivity of our technology, we are initially focusing on three indications: breast cancer, lung cancer, and immunotherapy (IO) monitoring. We have collaborations with Cancer Research UK, University College London, and the Francis Crick Institute (the TRACERx study); The Royal Marsden; the Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO); Duke University; the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (also known as UKE); and Criterium and the Academic Breast Cancer Consortium that will focus on building the evidence-base for our technology and these indications. If the key opinion leaders ("KOLs") we are collaborating with have a positive experience using our products, we are optimistic this will support broader use of our products by other KOLs, as well as clinicians in the future.

Furthermore, generating clinical evidence is crucial to obtaining reimbursement coverage from Medicare and other payors. We are striving to obtain reimbursement coverage for NeXT Personal Dx and NeXT Dx. In January 2024, we received a final Medicare coverage determination for our NeXT Dx offering, extended retroactively to August 29, 2023. We estimate that approximately half of new solid tumor cancer cases will be diagnosed in patients covered by Medicare. One of our 2024 goals is to submit for Medicare reimbursement for NeXT Personal Dx upon publication of compelling clinical evidence in three key indications.

Competition

Our principal competition comes from commercial and academic organizations using established and new laboratory tests to produce information that is similar to the information that we generate for our customers. These companies offer services that implement various technological approaches including next-generation sequencing and microarray analyses. Some of our present or potential competitors include Adela, Inc., BostonGene Corporation, Caris Life Sciences, Inc., Foresight Diagnostics Inc. (“Foresight”), Freenome, Inc., Fulgent Genetics, Inc., Geneseeq Technology Inc., GRAIL, Guardant Health, Inc., Haystack Oncology, Inc., which was acquired by Quest Diagnostics Incorporated in June 2023, Invitae Corporation (which on February 13, 2024 filed a voluntary petition to commence proceedings under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey), MedGenome Inc., Myriad Genetics, Inc., Natera, NeoGenomics, Inc., Novogene Corporation, Predicine, Inc., Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Tempus, Inc., and Veracyte, Inc.

Additionally, several companies develop next-generation sequencing platforms that can be used for genomic profiling for biopharmaceutical research and development applications. These include Illumina, Inc. ("Illumina"), Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., and other organizations that specialize in the development of next-generation sequencing instrumentation that can be sold directly to biopharmaceutical companies, clinical laboratories, and research centers. Separate from their instrumentation product lines, both Illumina and Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., for example, currently market next-generation sequencing clinical oncology kits that are sold to customers who have bought and operate their respective sequencing instruments.

We believe that we compete favorably because of the high sensitivity and comprehensiveness of the data generated by our products. Maximizing insights into both the tumor- and immune-related components of the tumor microenvironment is essential in identifying and understanding the reasons why certain cancer patients respond more favorably to oncology therapies than others. It is via access to such a comprehensive dataset for each patient that our customers can begin to discover new, clinically relevant biomarkers for the immunotherapy era, and ultimately improve cancer patient outcomes with the development of more efficacious therapeutics.

Intellectual Property

Protection of our intellectual property is fundamental to the long-term success of our business. Specifically, our success is dependent on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our technology and the know-how related to our business, defend and enforce our intellectual property rights, and operate our business without infringing, misappropriating, or otherwise violating valid and enforceable intellectual property rights of others. We seek to protect our investments made into the development of our technology by relying on a combination of patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, know-how, confidentiality agreements and procedures, non-disclosure agreements with third parties, employee disclosure and invention assignment agreements, and other contractual rights.

Our patent strategy is focused on seeking coverage for our core technology, our NeXT platform, including applications and implementations for enhancing sequencing coverage of certain genomic regions, identifying neoantigens, analyzing cell-free nucleic acids, and creating personalized cancer recurrence detection assays. In addition, we file for patent protection on our ongoing research and development efforts, particularly related to other novel assay technologies which may be applicable to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer and other diseases.

Our patent portfolio is comprised of patents and patent applications owned by the Company. These patents and patent applications generally fall into five broad categories:

•

our Accuracy and Content Enhanced ("ACE") assay and NeXT platform technology, including claims directed to methods for enriching nucleic acids from a sample based on differences in various genomic features, such as GC-content, molecular size, presence of genetic variations or rearrangements, identification of biomedically interpretable variants, epigenetic modifications, and/or species-origin (e.g., human and non-human);

•

hybrid exome-genome technologies, including claims directed to methods for combining exome and/or whole genome sequencing data generated from a sample, along with the identification of other variants to identify or detect disease;

•

liquid biopsy methods, including claims directed to methods of analyzing sequenced nucleic acids obtained from a patient sample in comparison with nucleic acids representing the reference genome, obtained from a blood sample, to identify disease, or recommend a drug treatment;

•

clinical interpretation and neoantigen identification and prediction methods, including claims directed to methods of ranking genes associated with a phenotype and inheritance pattern or identifying neoantigens expressed in a disease sample that may be used for targeted treatments; and

•

personalized genetic testing assays, including claims directed to methods for using sequencing data to create a personalized genetic test to monitor cancer progression, identify neoantigen candidates for personalized cancer vaccine treatment, or detect the recurrence of disease at the earliest possible timepoint.

As of December 31, 2023, we own 27 issued U.S. patents and 14 issued foreign patents. Issued U.S. patents in our portfolio of company-owned patents are expected to expire between 2033 and 2038, excluding any additional term for patent term adjustments or patent term extensions. If patents are issued on our pending patent applications, the resulting patents are projected to expire on dates ranging from 2033 to 2042.

Supply of Materials

We rely on a limited number of suppliers for sequencers and other equipment and raw materials that we use in our laboratory operations. For example, we rely on Illumina as the sole supplier of sequencers and various associated reagents, and as the sole provider of maintenance and repair services for these sequencers. We have certain agreements and purchase arrangements in place with Illumina to satisfy the projected needs of our laboratory operations.

Customer Concentration

We currently derive a significant portion of our revenue from Natera, Inc. ("Natera") under our partnership to provide advanced tumor analysis for use in Natera's MRD testing offerings. Natera accounted for 43%, 41%, and 10% of our revenue for the years ended December 31, 2023, 2022, and 2021, respectively. We previously derived a significant portion of our revenue from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Million Veteran Program ("VA MVP"), which is a large-scale population sequencing initiative. VA MVP accounted for 13%, 13%, and 53% of our revenue for the years ended December 31, 2023, 2022, and 2021, respectively. Our top five customers, including the VA MVP and Natera, accounted for 74%, 76% and 84% of our revenue for the years ended December 31, 2023, 2022 and 2021, respectively.

Segments

We manage our business as one operating segment, which is the sale of sequencing and data analysis services.

Regulatory Environment

Coverage and Reimbursement

Our ability, and the ability of our customers, to commercialize diagnostic tests based on our technology will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for these tests will be available from third-party payors. Coverage and reimbursement of new products and services is uncertain, and whether the companies that use our instruments to develop their own products or services will attain coverage and adequate reimbursement is unknown. In the U.S., there is no uniform policy for determining coverage and reimbursement. Coverage can differ from payor to payor, and the process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage may be separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate. In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid healthcare costs, including price controls and restrictions on reimbursement. Additionally, the coverage and reimbursement status of newly-approved or cleared laboratory tests, including our NeXT Personal Dx offering, is uncertain. If we are inadequately covered by insurance or ineligible for such reimbursement, this could limit our ability to market tests in the future. The commercial success of future products in both domestic and international markets may depend in part on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, including government payors, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, managed care organizations, and other third-party payors.

Federal and State Laboratory Licensing Requirements

Under the CLIA, a laboratory is any facility that performs laboratory testing on specimens derived from humans for the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of disease, or the impairment of or assessment of health. CLIA requires that a laboratory hold a certificate applicable to the type of laboratory examinations it performs and that it complies with, among other things, standards covering operations, personnel, facilities administration, quality systems and proficiency testing, which are intended to ensure, among other things, that clinical laboratory testing services are accurate, reliable and timely.

To renew our CLIA certificate, we are subject to survey and inspection every two years to assess compliance with program standards. Because we are a CAP accredited laboratory, the CMS does not perform this survey and inspection and relies on our CAP survey and inspection. We also may be subject to additional unannounced inspections. Laboratories performing high complexity testing are required to meet more stringent requirements than laboratories performing less complex tests. In addition, a laboratory that is certified as “high complexity” under CLIA may develop, manufacture, validate, and use proprietary tests referred to as laboratory developed tests (“LDTs”). CLIA requires analytical validation including accuracy, precision, specificity, sensitivity, and establishment of a reference range for any LDT used in clinical testing. The regulatory and compliance standards applicable to the testing we perform may change over time, and any such changes could have a material effect on our business.

CLIA provides that a state may adopt laboratory regulations that are more stringent than those under federal law, and a number of states have implemented their own more stringent laboratory regulatory requirements. State laws may require that nonresident laboratories, or out-of-state laboratories, maintain an in-state laboratory license to perform tests on samples from patients who reside in that state. As a condition of state licensure, these state laws may require that laboratory personnel meet certain qualifications, specify certain quality control procedures or facility requirements, or prescribe record maintenance requirements. Because our laboratory is located in the state of California, we are required to and do maintain a California state laboratory license. We also maintain licenses to conduct testing in other states where nonresident laboratories are required to obtain state laboratory licenses, including Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and New York. Other states may currently have or adopt similar licensure requirements in the future, which may require us to modify, delay, or stop its operations in those states.

Regulatory framework for medical devices in the United States

Pursuant to its authority under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDC Act”), the FDA has jurisdiction over medical devices, which are defined to include, among other things, in vitro diagnostic devices (“IVDs”). The FDA regulates, among other things, the research, design, development, pre-clinical and clinical testing, manufacturing, safety, effectiveness, packaging, labeling, storage, recordkeeping, pre-market clearance or approval, adverse event reporting, marketing, promotion, sales, distribution, and import and export of medical devices. Unless an exemption applies, each new or significantly modified medical device we seek to commercially distribute in the United States will require either a premarket notification to the FDA requesting permission for commercial distribution under Section 510(k) of the FDC Act, also referred to as a 510(k) clearance, or approval from the FDA of a premarket approval application (“PMA”). Both the 510(k) clearance and PMA processes can be resource intensive, expensive, and lengthy, and require payment of significant user fees.

Although the FDA regulates medical devices, including IVDs, the FDA has historically exercised its enforcement discretion and not enforced applicable provisions of the FDC Act and FDA regulations with respect to LDTs, which are a subset of IVDs that are intended for clinical use and developed, validated, and offered within a single laboratory for use only in that laboratory. We currently market our diagnostic tests as LDTs.

On October 3, 2023, the FDA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “Proposed Rule”) to regulate LDTs as medical devices under the FDC Act. The Proposed Rule outlines a 5-stage, 4-year, risk-based timeline for all LDTs to come within the existing medical device regulatory framework. In early December 2023, following the close of a public comment period, the FDA announced its intention to publish the Proposed Rule in final form in April 2024. On January 18, 2024, the Director of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, which oversees IVD regulation within the FDA, and the Chief Medical Officer and Acting Director of CMS’ Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, which oversees CLIA within CMS, issued a joint press release supporting the Proposed Rule, indicating broad support within the Department of Health and Human Services for FDA’s Proposed Rule. If finalized as proposed, we would be required to obtain PMA approval for certain of our tests by October 1, 2027. We would also be subject to device registration and listing requirements, medical device reporting requirements and the requirements of the FDA’s Quality System Regulation. If the FDA determines that our tests are subject to enforcement as medical devices, we could be subject to enforcement action, including administrative and judicial sanctions, and additional regulatory controls and submissions for our tests, all of which could be burdensome. We and/or our collaborators may also be required to submit one or more of our tests for premarket notification, review, clearance or approval by the FDA as medical devices.

If the FDA determines that our tests and associated software do not fall within the definition of an LDT, or the Proposed Rule is finalized in its present form, or there are other regulatory or legislative changes, or if we voluntarily submit one or more of our tests for premarket notification, review, clearance or approval by the FDA as medical devices, we may be required to obtain premarket clearance for our tests and associated software under Section 510(k) of the FDC Act or approval of a PMA. We would also be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements such as registration and listing requirements, medical device reporting requirements, and quality control requirements. The regulatory requirements to which our tests are subject would depend on the FDA’s classification of our tests. The FDA has issued regulations classifying medical devices into one of three regulatory control categories (Class I, Class II, or Class III) depending on the degree of regulation that the FDA finds necessary to provide reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness. The class into which a device is placed determines the requirements that a medical device manufacturer must meet both pre- and post-market. On January 31, 2024, FDA announced its intent to initiate a reclassification process for most IVDs that are currently Class III (high risk), the majority of which are infectious disease and companion diagnostic IVDs, into Class II (moderate risk). This reclassification would allow manufacturers of certain types of IVDs to seek marketing clearance through the less burdensome Class II 510(k) premarket notification pathway rather than the Class III premarket approval (PMA) pathway, the most stringent type of FDA medical device review.

Generally, Class I devices do not require premarket authorization, but are subject to a comprehensive set of regulatory authorities referred to as general controls. Class II devices, in addition to general controls, generally require special controls and premarket clearance through the submission of a section 510(k) premarket notification. Class III devices are subject to general controls and special controls, and also require premarket approval prior to commercial distribution, which is a more rigorous process than premarket clearance. Under the FDC Act, a device that is first marketed after May 28, 1976 is by default a Class III device requiring premarket approval unless it is within a type of generic device class that has been classified as Class I or Class II. Even if a device falls under an existing Class II, non-exempt, device classification, the product must also be shown to be “substantially equivalent” to a legally marketed predicate device through submission of a section 510(k) premarket notification. If after reviewing a firm’s 510(k) premarket notification, the FDA determines that a device is not substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device, the new device is classified into Class III, requiring premarket approval. It is possible for a manufacturer to obtain a Class I or Class II designation without an appropriate predicate by submitting a de novo request for reclassification.

The process for submitting a 510(k) premarket notification and receiving FDA clearance usually takes from three to 12 months, but it can take significantly longer and clearance is never guaranteed. The process for submitting and obtaining FDA approval of a PMA is much more costly, lengthy, and uncertain. It generally takes from one to three years or even longer and approval is not guaranteed. PMA approval typically requires extensive clinical data and can be significantly longer, more expensive and more uncertain than the 510(k) clearance process. Despite the time, effort and expense expended, there can be no assurance that a particular device ultimately will be cleared or approved by the FDA through either the 510(k) clearance process or the PMA process on a timely basis, or at all.

One classification regulation that could be relevant to one or more of our tests is a classification for genetic health risk (“GHR”) assessment tests, codified at 21 C.F.R. § 866.5950. If our tests fall under the 21 C.F.R. § 866.5950 classification regulation for GHR tests, or under another Class II classification that is subject to a premarket notification requirement, we would be required to obtain marketing clearance for such tests. Further, if considered to fall under the 21 C.F.R. § 866.5950 classification for GHR tests, our tests would be required to adhere to specified special controls, such as labeling and testing specifications and information about the test to be posted on the manufacturer’s website.

The FDA requires medical device manufacturers to comply with, among other things, current good manufacturing practices for medical devices, set forth in the Quality System Regulation at 21 C.F.R. Part 820, which requires manufacturers to follow elaborate design, testing, control, documentation, and other quality assurance procedures during the manufacturing process; the medical device reporting regulation, which requires that manufacturers report to the FDA if their device or a similar device they market may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or malfunctioned in a way that would likely cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if it were to recur; labeling regulations, including the FDA’s general prohibition against promoting products for unapproved or “off-label” uses; the reports of corrections and removals regulation, which requires manufacturers to report to the FDA if a device correction or removal was initiated to reduce a risk to health posed by the device or to remedy a violation of the FDC Act caused by the device which may present a risk to health; and the establishment registration and device listing regulation.

In addition, any clearance or approval we obtain for our products may contain requirements for costly post-market testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. The FDA has broad post-market enforcement powers, and if unanticipated problems with our products arise, or if we or our suppliers fail to comply with regulatory requirements following FDA clearance or approval, we may become subject to enforcement actions such as:

•

restrictions on manufacturing processes;

•

restrictions on product marketing;

•

warning letters;

•

withdrawal or recall of products from the market;

•

refusal to approve pending PMAs, 510(k)s, or supplements to approved PMAs or cleared 510(k)s that we submit;

•

fines, restitution, or disgorgement of profits or revenue;

•

suspension or withdrawal of regulatory clearances or approvals;

•

limitation on, or refusal to permit, import or export of our products;

•

product seizures;

•

injunctions; or

•

imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

Moreover, the FDA strictly regulates the promotional claims that may be made about medical devices. In particular, a medical device may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA as reflected in the device’s approved labeling. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with the product’s FDA approved labeling. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant civil, criminal, and administrative penalties.

In addition, many of the products we use to perform our tests, including sequencers and various associated reagents supplied to us by Illumina, are labeled as research use only (“RUO”) in the U.S. RUO products are exempt from FDA medical device requirements provided their manufacturers comply with specified labeling and restrictions on distribution. The products must bear the statement: “For Research Use Only. Not for Use in Diagnostic Procedures.” Manufacturers of RUO products cannot make any claims related to safety, effectiveness or diagnostic utility, and RUO products cannot be intended by the manufacturer for clinical diagnostic use. A product promoted for diagnostic use may be viewed by the FDA as adulterated and misbranded under the FDC Act and is subject to FDA enforcement activities, including requiring the manufacturer to seek marketing authorization for the products. We currently use Illumina and other RUO products for our clinical diagnostic tests. If the FDA were to require clearance, approval or authorization for the sale of Illumina’s RUO products and if Illumina does not obtain such clearance, approval or authorization, we would have to find an alternative sequencing platform for some or all of our clinical diagnostic tests.

Federal and State Fraud and Abuse Laws

We are subject to federal fraud and abuse laws such as the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (the “AKS”), the federal prohibition against physician self-referral (the “Stark Law”), and the federal false claims law, or the False Claims Act (the “FCA”). We are also subject to similar state and foreign fraud and abuse laws.

The AKS prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, in return for or to induce such person to refer an individual, or to purchase, lease, order, arrange for, or recommend purchasing, leasing, or ordering, any good, facility, item, or service that is reimbursable, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program.

The Stark Law and similar state laws, including California’s Physician Ownership and Referral Act, generally prohibit, among other things, clinical laboratories and other entities from billing a patient or any governmental or commercial payor for any diagnostic services when the physician ordering the service, or any member of such physician’s immediate family, has a direct or indirect investment interest in or compensation arrangement with us, unless the arrangement meets an exception to the prohibition.

The federal civil and criminal false claims laws including the FCA, which imposes liability on any person or entity that, among other things, knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment to the federal government, and the federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law, which prohibits, among other things, the offering or transfer of remuneration to a Medicare or state healthcare program beneficiary if the person knows or should know it is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular provider, practitioner, or supplier of services reimbursable by Medicare or a state healthcare program, unless an exception applies. Under the FCA, private citizens can bring claims on behalf of the government through qui tam actions. We must also operate within the bounds of the fraud and abuse laws of the states in which we do business which may apply to items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers.

The Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act

The Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018 (“EKRA”) prohibits payments for referrals to recovery homes, clinical treatment facilities, and laboratories and is similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute in that it creates criminal penalties for knowing or willful payment or offer, or solicitation or receipt, of any remuneration, whether directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, in exchange for the referral or inducement of laboratory testing unless a specific exception applies. Unlike the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, EKRA’s reach extends beyond federal health care programs to include private insurance (i.e., it is an “all payor” statute). Additionally, most of the safe harbors available under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute are not reiterated under EKRA, and certain EKRA safe harbors conflict with the safe harbors available under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Therefore, compliance with a federal Anti-Kickback safe harbor does not guarantee protection under EKRA. Because EKRA is a new law, there is very little additional guidance to indicate how and to what extent it will be interpreted, applied and enforced by the government. Currently, there is no proposed regulation interpreting or implementing EKRA, nor any public guidance released by a federal agency concerning EKRA.

Other Federal and State Healthcare Laws

In addition to the requirements discussed above, several other healthcare laws could have an effect on our business. For example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) fraud and abuse provisions created federal civil and criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, defrauding healthcare programs, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and falsifying or concealing a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

The federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires certain manufacturers of drugs, biologicals, and medical devices or supplies that require premarket approval by or notification to the FDA, and for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (“CHIP”), with certain exceptions, to report annually to CMS information related to (i) payments and other transfers of value to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists, and chiropractors), other healthcare professionals (such as physicians assistants and nurse practitioners) and teaching hospitals, and (ii) ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members.

The “Anti-Markup Rule” and similar state laws prohibit, among other things, a physician or supplier billing the Medicare program from marking up the price of a purchased diagnostic service performed by another laboratory or supplier that does not “share a practice” with the billing physician or supplier. Penalties may apply to the billing physician or supplier if Medicare or another payor is billed at a rate that exceeds the performing laboratory’s charges to the billing physician or supplier, and the performing laboratory could be at risk under false claims laws, described below, for causing the submission of a false claim.

The “14-Day Rule,” also known as the Medicare Date of Service Rule, prohibits a laboratory supplier from billing the Medicare program for tests performed on samples collected during or within 14 days of an inpatient hospital stay, unless an exception applies, and requires the laboratory supplier to bill the hospital in those cases. Penalties may apply to the laboratory supplier if Medicare determines that the Medicare program was inappropriately billed for testing that should have been billed to the hospital where the sample was collected.

State client billing laws specify whether a person that did not perform the service is permitted to submit the claim for payment and if so, whether the non-performing person is permitted to mark up the cost of the services in excess of the price the purchasing provider paid for such services. For example, California has an anti-markup statute which prohibits providers from charging for any laboratory test that it did not perform unless the provider (a) notifies the patient, client or customer of the name, address, and charges of the laboratory performing the test, and (b) charges no more than what the provider was charged by the clinical laboratory which performed the test except for any other service actually rendered to the patient by the provider (for example, specimen collection, processing and handling) (California Business and Professions Code Section 655.5). This provision applies, with certain limited exceptions, to licensed persons such as physicians and clinical laboratories regulated under the Business and Professions Code. In addition, many states also have “direct-bill” laws, which means that the services actually performed by an individual or entity must be billed by such individual or entity, thus preventing ordering physicians from purchasing services from a laboratory and rebilling for the services they order. For example, California has a direct bill rule specific to anatomic pathology services that prohibits any provider from billing for anatomic pathology services if those services were not actually rendered by that person or under his or her direct supervision with some exemptions (California Business and Professions Code Section 655.7).

In addition, we may be subject to state laws that prohibit other specified practices, such as billing physicians for testing that they order; waiving coinsurance, copayments, deductibles, and other amounts owed by patients; billing a state Medicaid program at a price that is higher than what is charged to one or more other payors; employing, exercising control over, licensed professionals in violation of state laws prohibiting corporate practice of medicine and other professions, and prohibitions against the splitting of professional fees with licensed professionals.

As a clinical laboratory, our business practices may face additional scrutiny from government regulatory agencies such as the Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"), Office of Inspector General (the “OIG”), and CMS. Certain arrangements between clinical laboratories and referring physicians have been identified in fraud alerts issued by the OIG as implicating the Anti-Kickback Statute. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting, or oversight obligations if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with the law and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government-funded healthcare programs.

HIPAA and HITECH

Under the administrative simplification provisions of HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”), HHS issued regulations that establish uniform standards governing the conduct of certain electronic healthcare transactions and requirements for protecting the privacy and security of protected health information (“PHI”), used or disclosed by covered entities and business associates. Covered entities and business associates are subject to HIPAA and HITECH. Our subcontractors that create, receive, maintain, transmit, or otherwise process PHI on behalf of us are HIPAA “business associates” and must also comply with HIPAA as a business associate.

HIPAA and HITECH include privacy and security rules, breach notification requirements, and electronic transaction standards.

The Privacy Rule covers the use and disclosure of PHI by covered entities and business associates. The Privacy Rule generally prohibits the use or disclosure of PHI, except as permitted under the Rule. The Privacy Rule also sets forth individual patient rights, such as the right to access or amend certain records containing his or her PHI, or to request restrictions on the use or disclosure of his or her PHI.

The Security Rule requires covered entities and business associates to safeguard the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronically transmitted or stored PHI by implementing administrative, physical, and technical safeguards. Under HITECH’s Breach Notification Rule, a covered entity must notify individuals, the Secretary of the HHS, and in some circumstances, the media of breaches of unsecured PHI.

In addition, we may be subject to state health information privacy and data breach notification laws, which may govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information. California, for example, has enacted the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, which sets forth standards in addition to HIPAA and HITECH with which all California health care providers like us must abide. State laws may be more stringent, broader in scope, or offer greater individual rights with respect to PHI than HIPAA, and state laws may differ from each other, which may complicate compliance efforts.

Entities that are found to be in violation of HIPAA as the result of a failure to secure PHI, a complaint about our privacy practices or an audit by HHS, may be subject to significant civil and criminal fines and penalties and additional reporting and oversight obligations if such entities are required to enter into a resolution agreement and corrective action plan with HHS to settle allegations of HIPAA non-compliance.

U.S. Healthcare Reform

In the United States, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes at the federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (collectively, the “ACA”), became law. This law substantially changed the way health care is financed by both commercial payors and government payors, and significantly impacted our industry. The ACA contained a number of provisions expected to impact the clinical laboratory industry, such as changes governing enrollment in state and federal health care programs, reimbursement changes, and fraud and abuse.

There have been executive, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. Since January 2017, former President Trump signed two executive orders and other directives designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the ACA. Concurrently, Congress considered legislation that would repeal, or repeal and replace, all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, it has enacted laws that modify certain provisions of the ACA such as removing penalties, starting January 1, 2019, for not complying with the ACA’s individual mandate to carry health insurance and delaying the implementation of certain ACA-mandated fees. On June 17, 2021 the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. Further, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. Further, on

August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA 2022”) into law, which among other things, extends enhanced subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance coverage in ACA marketplaces through plan year 2025. The IRA 2022 also eliminates the “donut hole” under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025 by significantly lowering the beneficiary maximum out-of-pocket cost and through a newly established manufacturer discount program. It is possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how any such challenges and the health reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the ACA.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to providers by 2% per fiscal year, effective on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect until 2032, unless additional Congressional action is taken. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, enacted on April 16, 2015 (“MACRA”), repealed the formula by which Medicare made annual payment adjustments to physicians and replaced the former formula with fixed annual updates, and established a quality payment incentive program, also referred to as the Quality Payment Program. This program provides clinicians with two ways to participate, including through the Advanced Alternative Payment Models (“APMs”), and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (“MIPS”). Under both APMs and MIPS, performance data collected each performance year will affect Medicare payments in later years, including potentially reducing payments.

In April 2014, Congress passed the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (“PAMA”), which included substantial changes to the way in which clinical laboratory services are paid under Medicare. Under PAMA, laboratories that receive the majority of their Medicare revenue from payments made under the Medicare Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (the "Physician Fee Schedule") are required to report to CMS, beginning in 2017 and every three years thereafter (or annually for “advanced diagnostic laboratory tests”), private payor payment rates and volumes for their tests. CMS will use this data to calculate a weighted median payment rate for each test, which will be used to establish revised Medicare reimbursement rates for the tests. Laboratories that fail to report the required payment information may be subject to substantial civil monetary penalties. Reporting of payment data under PAMA for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests has been delayed on numerous occasions. Beginning on January 1, 2018, CMS has begun using reported private payor pricing to periodically revise payment rates under the CLFS. Based on current law, between January 1, 2025 and March 31, 2025, applicable laboratories will be required to report on data collected during January 1, 2019 and June 30, 2019. This data will be utilized to determine 2025 to 2027 CLFS rates. The payment rate applies to laboratory tests furnished by a hospital laboratory if the test is separately paid under the hospital outpatient prospective payment system. It is still too early to predict the full impact on reimbursement for our current tests or those in development. Pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act"), the statutory phase-in of the payment reductions has been extended through 2024 with a 0% reduction cap for 2021-2022 and a 15% reduction cap for 2023 through 2025. It is unclear what impact new quality and payment programs, such as MACRA, or new pricing structures, such as those adopted under PAMA, may have on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

We also anticipate there will continue to be proposals by legislators at both the federal and state levels, regulators and private payors to reduce costs while expanding individual healthcare benefits. Certain of these changes could impose additional limitations on the prices we will be able to charge for our tests, the coverage of or the amounts of reimbursement available for our tests from payors, including commercial payors and government payors.

Human Capital

We recognize that our employees are both our most valuable asset and our most important investment. The success of our organization is reliant upon each individual’s significant contribution to our corporate culture and goals. Following is a list of our core company values:

•

Integrity

•

Passion

•

Scientific excellence and innovation

•

Respect and inclusion

•

Teamwork and collaboration

At a foundational level, employees receive training related to workplace safety and emergency preparedness, awareness and expectations of inclusion and diversity, required data protection, and other regulatory matters. We offer competitive total rewards programs, ongoing training and development, and a commitment to the safety and health of our employees. We also practice a commitment to diversity by including broader outreach and sourcing for candidates for new roles as well as education and a visible commitment to diversity and inclusion internally.

An engaged workforce with skills specific to our needs is critical for our successful growth in a competitive market and sector. We regularly benchmark our compensation and benefits by geography, industry (life sciences), and by role to ensure we maintain our status as an employer of choice in these areas. Our turnover rates over the last three years have been consistent with such benchmarks. Reports of our position relative to the benchmarks are reported to management and the compensation committee of our board of directors on a periodic basis.

As of January 31, 2024, we had 225 employees, of which 223 were full-time employees. Of these full-time employees, 80 were in research and development, 70 in laboratory operations, 38 in commercial operations and 35 in general and administrative functions. 221 of our full-time employees were located in the United States, with the remaining two located in Europe (including the U.K.). As of January 31, 2024, more than 40% of our employees had completed a Ph.D. or other advanced science or medical degree.

None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by collective bargaining agreements, and we have not experienced any work stoppages. We consider our relations with our employees to be good. The use of independent contractors is not a material part of our workforce strategy.

Environment

We believe we are in compliance with the regulations established by the state of California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Requirements and California Environmental Protection Agency applicable to our operations in Fremont, California. This includes, but is not limited to, having an Injury and Illness Prevention Program, a Hazard Communication Program, an Emergency Action Plan, a Chemical Hygiene Plan and an Exposure Control Plan, which are captured in written standard operating procedures (“SOPs”). We provide training to our employees on these SOPs. We are committed to evaluate our compliance to such regulations on a recurring basis.

Available Information

Our website is located at https://www.personalis.com. Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, including their exhibits, proxy and information statements, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a), 14, and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, are available through the “Investors” portion of our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. We also use the investor relations page on our website as a channel of distribution for important company information, including press releases, analyst coverage and financial information regarding us, as well as corporate governance information. Information on our website is not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any of our other securities filings unless specifically incorporated herein or therein by reference. In addition, our filings with the SEC may be accessed through the SEC’s Interactive Data Electronic Applications system at http://www.sec.gov. All statements made in any of our securities filings, including all forward-looking statements or information, are made as of the date of the document in which the statement is included, and we do not assume or undertake any obligation to update any of those statements or documents unless we are required to do so by law.