Insight Molecular Diagnostics Inc.

Current report

Our ability to commercialize our products is dependent on our ability to increase our tests reimbursed by Medicare, and the loss of, or a significant reduction in, reimbursement from Medicare or the CMS would have a material adverse impact on our business.

Current report

Our primary near-term strategic market is organ transplant. We received a positive coverage decision from MolDx for GraftAssureCore (Kidney) in August of 2023, and it became commercially available for ordering in January 2024.

Current report

In December 2024, we confirmed Medicare reimbursement for also monitoring certain high-risk patients, that is, those with newly developed donor-specific antibodies. However, we may not be able to maintain or increase our tests reimbursed by Medicare for a variety of reasons, including changes in reimbursement practices, general policy shifts, or reductions in reimbursement amounts. We cannot predict whether Medicare reimbursements will continue at the same payment amount or with the same breadth of coverage in the future, if at all.

Current report

For diagnostics tests, Medicare or CMS reimbursement approval is critical. CMS relies on a network of Medicare Administrative Contractors (“MACs”) to make a LCD approving a test for reimbursement. The MolDx Program was developed by Palmetto GBA (the previous MAC for California) to identify and establish coverage and reimbursement for molecular diagnostics tests. The program has developed guidelines for the level of evidence of efficacy required to be obtained through clinical trials. Palmetto, which contracted with CMS to administer the MolDx, issues LCDs that affect coverage, coding, and billing of many molecular tests and the current MAC for California, Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC, has adopted the coverage policies from Palmetto. MACs also serve as the primary operational contact between the Medicare Fee-For-Service program, for paying Medicare claims, and approximately 1.5 million health care providers enrolled in the program. Delays in obtaining MAC approval, or any changes made related to any favorable LCDs, could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Current report

The MolDx Program was developed by Palmetto GBA (the previous MAC for California) to identify and establish coverage and reimbursement for molecular diagnostics tests. The program has developed guidelines for the level of evidence of efficacy required to be obtained through clinical trials. Palmetto, which contracted with CMS to administer the MolDx, issues LCDs that affect coverage, coding, and billing of many molecular tests and the current MAC for California, Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC, has adopted the coverage policies from Palmetto. MACs also serve as the primary operational contact between the Medicare Fee-For-Service program, for paying Medicare claims, and approximately 1.5 million health care providers enrolled in the program. Delays in obtaining MAC approval, or any changes made related to any favorable LCDs, could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Current report

On July 17, 2025, several MolDx MACs published a new “MolDX: Molecular Testing for Solid Organ Allograft Rejection” draft LCD (L38671), that, if adopted, would revise the existing foundational LCD, “MolDX: Molecular Testing for Solid Organ Allograft Rejection” (L38568 and L38629). In the draft LCD, surveillance use is explicitly contemplated and MolDx proposes capping the number of surveillance tests for kidney in year-one at four and subsequent years at two per year, and year-one tests for heart and lung would be capped at 12 tests per year. The comment period will run from July 17, 2025 through August 31, 2025 and an open meeting will be held August 25, 2025.

Current report

If future reimbursement price levels are less than the current price, our revenues and our ability to achieve profitability could be impaired, and the market price of our common stock could decline. We may also not be able to maintain or increase the portion of our tests reimbursed by Medicare for a variety of other reasons, including changes in reimbursement practices and general policy shifts.

Current report

We cannot predict whether Noridian or any future MAC will continue to provide reimbursement for GraftAssureCore (Kidney) at the same payment amount or with the same breadth of coverage in the future, if at all. Additional changes in the MAC processing Medicare claims for GraftAssureCore (Kidney) could impact the coverage or payment amount for our tests and our ability to obtain Medicare coverage for any products we may launch in the future.

Current report

Any decision by CMS or its local contractors to reduce or deny coverage for our tests would have a significant adverse effect on our revenue and results of operations and ability to operate and raise capital. Any such decision could also cause affected clinicians treating Medicare-covered patients to reduce or discontinue the use of our tests.

Previous report

Our products are subject to the FDA’s final rule ending enforcement discretion for LDTs and regulating such tests as medical devices. Implementing the requirements under the final rule could lead to delays in commercialization, or (if encountered after commercialization) requirements to halt the commercial provision of our tests until FDA marketing authorization is obtained.

Previous report

In May 2024, the FDA published a final rule that phases out its enforcement discretion for LDTs, unless exempt, and amends the FDA’s regulations to make explicit that IVDs are medical devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), including when the manufacturer of the diagnostic product is a laboratory. The American Clinical Laboratory Association and the Association of Molecular Pathology have filed lawsuits against the FDA to challenge its authority to regulate LDTs under this final rule. On March 31, 2025, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas vacated the FDA’s LDT final rule. It is unclear whether the court’s ruling will be appealed. The full impact of this litigation and the existing (and any future) challenges against currently remains to be seen.

Previous report

If the final rule were to be reinstated, and the FDA were to ultimately regulate our tests as traditional IVDs, some or all of our tests may become subject to certain FDA medical device regulations, including, in some cases, pre-market review. If required, the regulatory marketing authorization process may involve, among other things, successfully completing additional clinical trials and submitting a pre-market clearance (510(k)) submission or filing a de novo or pre-market approval application with the FDA. If pre-market review and approval is required by the FDA for any of our tests, we may need to incur additional expenses or require additional time to seek it, or we may be unable to satisfy FDA standards, and our applicable tests may not be cleared or approved on a timely basis, if at all, and the labeling claims permitted by the FDA may not be consistent with our currently planned claims or adequate to support adoption of and reimbursement for our tests. Ongoing compliance with any applicable FDA medical device regulations to which we could become subject in connection with any of our tests that FDA may regulate as traditional IVDs would increase the cost of conducting our business, and subject us to inspection by, and potential enforcement of certain regulatory requirements, of the FDA, for example registration and listing, adherence to good manufacturing practices under the Quality System Regulation (“QSR”), and medical device reporting. Enforcement action for noncompliance with these requirements could range from warning or untitled letters to civil and criminal penalties, injunctions, product seizure or recall, import bans, restrictions on the conduct of our operations and total or partial suspension of production. Our laboratories are operating under CLIA and are not currently operating as registered device manufacturing facilities or in compliance with FDA’s QSR. Because these standards differ, we may face challenges establishing FDA-compliant quality systems or be unable to do so. If after commercialization under the LDT framework, our tests are allowed to remain on the market but there is uncertainty about the regulatory status of our tests, which is likely, given the current state of industry challenges to FDA’s final rule, including questions that may be raised if competitors object to our regulatory positioning as an LDT, we may encounter ongoing regulatory and legal challenges and related costs. Such challenges or related developments (for example if the labeling claims the FDA allows us to make are more limited than the claims we currently plan to make) may impact our commercialization efforts as orders or reimbursement may be less than anticipated. Any of these regulatory developments may cause our business to suffer.

Previous report

If the FDA is successful in overcoming challenges to the final rule and ultimately regulates certain LDTs as intended under the final rule, our tests may be subject to certain additional regulatory requirements, the scope of which may vary from one test to another based on various considerations. Complying with the FDA’s requirements can be expensive, time-consuming, and subject us to significant or unanticipated delays. To the extent we are required to obtain premarket clearance or approval to perform or continue performing any of our tests, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain such authorization. Even if we obtain regulatory clearance or approval where required, such authorization may not be for the intended uses that we believe are commercially attractive or are critical to the commercial success of our tests. Based on these and other considerations, the implementation of the FDA’s final rule on LDTs could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Previous report

In addition, the final rule does not change the FDA’s policy of regulating IVDs as medical devices. As a result, most IVDs are currently subject to FDA requirements, including pre-market authorization. While we currently believe our products qualify as LDTs, the FDA may disagree. If the FDA determines that our products do not qualify as LDTs, we may be subject to FDA enforcement action, such as warning letters, seizure, injunction, criminal prosecution, monetary penalties, and others. In addition, if our products are classified as IVDs instead of LDTs, we may be required to obtain 510(k) clearance or a Premarket Approval (“PMA”) before re-marketing the products, which would result in a significant increase in costs, as well as a potential loss in revenue.