GeneDx Holdings Corp.
For the period ended Mar 31, 2025. Filed Apr 30, 2025.
View on SEC.govAbout this filing
A company's report for each of its first three quarters. The financial statements are not audited. It shows how the business has moved since the last annual report, and what management says changed.
Mar 31, 2025 · Filed Apr 30, 2025
WGS$62.37-3.1%Stored close · as of Nov 6, 2026
What changed in Risk Factors?
Read the current filingPrevious report: 10-Q
Period ended 2024-09-30; filed 2024-10-29.
0001818331-24-000059
Item 1A. Risk FactorsCurrent report: 10-Q
Period ended 2025-03-31; filed 2025-04-30.
0001818331-25-000071
Item 1A. Risk FactorsThe baseline is this issuer’s latest earlier reporting period of the same form that was filed before the current report. A previous 10-Q is a different quarter, not a year-over-year comparison. Amendments are excluded.
Compared 9 previous paragraphs and 10 current paragraphs.
1 unchanged; 6 reworded; 3 added; 2 removed; 0 previous and 0 current paragraphs rearranged.
Tables are not compared: 0 previous and 0 current tables excluded. Dates, whitespace, punctuation and numbering changes are ignored; changes to financial figures remain significant.
A changed paragraph is not evidence that risk increased or decreased. An unchanged paragraph does not establish that risk stayed the same.
Added paragraphs (3)
Current report
We currently incorporate artificial intelligence (“AI”) solutions into our workflows and, if we acquire Fabric Genomics, Inc., we expect to expand significantly our use of AI in genomic interpretation. In addition, we are exploring additional potential third-party partnerships to help us offer other AI solutions for providers and patients. Our competitors or other third parties may incorporate AI into their products and offerings more quickly or more successfully than us, which could impair our ability to compete effectively and adversely affect our results of operations. Additionally, if the content, analyses, or recommendations that AI applications assist in producing are or are alleged to be inaccurate, deficient, or biased, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected. The use of AI applications has resulted in, and may in the future result in, cybersecurity incidents that implicate the personal medical and genetic data of patients analyzed within such applications. Any such cybersecurity incidents related to our use of AI applications to analyze personal data could adversely affect our reputation and results of operations. AI also presents emerging ethical issues and if our use of AI becomes controversial, we may experience brand or reputational harm, competitive harm, or legal liability. The rapid evolution of AI, including potential government regulation of AI and its various uses, may require significant resources to develop, test and maintain offerings, services, and features to help us implement AI ethically in order to minimize unintended, harmful impact.
Current report
Some of our activities may subject the Company to risks under federal and state laws prohibiting ‘kickbacks’ and false or fraudulent claims.
Current report
In 2018, Congress passed the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act (“EKRA”), as part of the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act. Similar to the Anti-Kickback Statute, EKRA imposes 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 (among other healthcare services) unless a specific exception applies. However, unlike the Anti-Kickback Statute, EKRA is not limited to services covered by federal or state healthcare programs but applies more broadly to services covered by “healthcare benefit programs,” including commercial insurers. As currently drafted, EKRA potentially expands the universe of arrangements that could be subject to government enforcement under federal fraud and abuse laws. In addition, while the Anti-Kickback Statute, includes certain exceptions that are widely relied upon in the healthcare industry, including safe harbors applicable to certain employees and personal service contracts, and not all of those same exceptions apply under EKRA. EKRA expressly does not protect employee compensation that varies by the number of individuals referred to a laboratory, the number of tests performed by a laboratory, or the amount billed to or received from a health benefit program from individuals referred to a laboratory. Because EKRA is a relatively new law, there is no agency guidance and only a few courts have addressed the application of EKRA and those courts reached opposite conclusions on the issue of whether laboratory payments to employees for sales and marketing activities implicate or violate EKRA. Given the conflicting opinions, we cannot be assured that courts in our jurisdiction will reach the same conclusion or that the decision will not be overturned if there is an appeal. We cannot assure you that our relationships with healthcare providers, hospitals, customers, our own sales representatives, or any other party will not be subject to scrutiny or will survive regulatory challenge under EKRA or other anti-kickback laws.
Removed paragraphs (2)
Previous report
Complying with numerous statutes and regulations pertaining to our business is an expensive and time-consuming process, and any failure to comply could result in substantial penalties.
Previous report
In addition to the risks set out under this heading in our 2023 Form 10-K, the U.S. Supreme Court recently reversed its longstanding approach under the Chevron doctrine, which provided for judicial deference to regulatory agencies. As a result of this decision, we cannot be sure whether there will be increased challenges to existing agency regulations or how lower courts will apply the decision in the context of other regulatory schemes without more specific guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision could significantly impact healthcare, privacy, artificial intelligence and anti-corruption practices and other regulatory regimes with which we are required to comply. Any such regulatory developments could result in uncertainty about and changes in the ways such regulations apply to us, and may require additional resources to ensure our continued compliance.
Reworded paragraphs (6)
Previous wording
Except for as set forth below, there have been no material changes in our risk factors from those disclosed in Part I, Item 1A “Risk Factors” of our 2023 Form 10-K and in Part II, Item 1A “Risk Factors” of each of our Quarterly Reports for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2024, filed with the SEC on April 29, 2024, and June 30, 2024, filed with the SEC on July 30, 2024, which sections are incorporated by reference herein.
Current wording
Except for as set forth below, there have been no material changes in our risk factors from those disclosed in Part I, Item 1A “Risk Factors” of our 2024 Form 10-K, which section is incorporated by reference herein.
Previous wording
Changes in FDA enforcement discretion for laboratory developed tests (“LDTs”) could subject our operations to much more significant regulatory requirements.
Current wording
Changes in FDA oversight for laboratory developed tests (“LDTs”) could subject our operations to much more significant regulatory requirements.
Previous wording
We currently offer an LDT version of certain tests. Historically, the FDA has exercised a policy of enforcement discretion with respect to most LDTs, whereby the FDA did not actively enforce its medical device regulatory requirements for such tests. However, at various points in recent years, FDA has indicated that it intends to end enforcement discretion for many tests offered as LDTs, and to require such tests to comply with certain FDA regulatory requirements. The FDA Commissioner and the Director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (“CDRH”) have expressed significant concerns regarding performance disparities between some LDTs and in vitro diagnostics that have been reviewed, cleared, authorized or approved by the FDA.
Current wording
We currently offer an LDT version of certain tests. Historically, the FDA has exercised a policy of enforcement discretion with respect to most LDTs, whereby the FDA did not actively enforce its medical device regulatory requirements for such tests. However, at various points in recent years, FDA has indicated that it intends to end enforcement discretion for many tests offered as LDTs, and to require such tests to comply with certain FDA regulatory requirements. Agency officials have previously expressed significant concerns regarding performance disparities between some LDTs and in vitro diagnostics that have been reviewed, cleared, authorized or approved by the FDA.
Previous wording
Most recently, on April 29, 2024, the FDA published a final rule on LDTs, in which FDA outlines its plans to end enforcement discretion for many LDTs in five stages over a four-year period. In Phase 1 (effective May 6, 2025), clinical laboratories would be required to comply with medical device (adverse event) reporting, correction/removal reporting, and certain quality systems complaint handling requirements. In Phase 2 (effective May 6, 2026), clinical laboratories would be required to comply with all other device requirements (e.g., registration/listing, labeling, investigational use), except for remaining quality systems requirements and premarket review. In Phase 3 (effective May 6, 2027), clinical laboratories would be required to comply with all remaining applicable quality systems requirements. In Phase 4 (effective November 6, 2027), clinical laboratories would be required to comply with premarket submission requirements for high-risk tests (i.e., tests subject to premarket approval (PMA) requirement). Finally, in Phase 5 (effective May 6, 2028), clinical laboratories would be required comply with premarket submission requirements for moderate- and low-risk tests (i.e., tests subject to de novo or 510(k) requirement). The final rule potentially extends enforcement discretion for certain tests – e.g., LDTs approved by the New York State Department of Health, and LDTs first marketed prior to May 6, 2024 which are not modified or are modified in certain limited ways – from certain FDA regulatory requirements, provided certain important limitations have been met. We are actively reviewing the final rule to evaluate its applicability to our operations, and the extent to which we may be required to modify our operations to comply with its requirements.
Current wording
On April 29, 2024, the FDA published a final rule on LDTs, in which FDA outlined its plans to end enforcement discretion for many LDTs in five stages over a four-year period. In Phase 1 (effective May 6, 2025), clinical laboratories would be required to comply with medical device (adverse event) reporting, correction/removal reporting, and certain quality systems complaint handling requirements. In Phase 2 (effective May 6, 2026), clinical laboratories would be required to comply with all other device requirements (e.g., registration/listing, labeling, investigational use), except for remaining quality systems requirements and premarket review. In Phase 3 (effective May 6, 2027), clinical laboratories would be required to comply with all remaining applicable quality systems requirements. In Phase 4 (effective November 6, 2027), clinical laboratories would be required to comply with premarket submission requirements for high-risk tests (i.e., tests subject to premarket approval (PMA) requirement). Finally, in Phase 5 (effective May 6, 2028), clinical laboratories would be required to comply with premarket submission requirements for moderate- and low-risk tests (i.e., tests subject to de novo or 510(k) requirement). The final rule potentially extends enforcement discretion for certain tests – e.g., LDTs approved by the New York State Department of Health, and LDTs first marketed prior to May 6, 2024, which are not modified or are modified in certain limited ways– from certain FDA regulatory requirements, provided certain important limitations have been met.
Previous wording
Multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging the FDA’s authority to regulate LDTs as medical devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The outcome of these lawsuits is uncertain at this time.
Current wording
Multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging the FDA’s authority to regulate LDTs as medical devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). On March 31, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas struck down the 2024 final rule on the grounds that FDA exceeded its authority under the FDCA. As a result, clinical laboratories offering LDTs will not be required to comply with any of the Phases of the final rule unless FDA successfully appeals the court’s ruling. The government has not announced whether it intends to appeal the district court’s decision. We are actively reviewing the final rule and monitoring the status of legal challenges to the rule to evaluate its applicability to our operations, and the extent to which we may be required to modify our operations to comply with its requirements.
Previous wording
If the FDA were to determine that certain tests offered by us as LDTs are no longer eligible for enforcement discretion for any reason, including new rules, policies or guidance, or due to changes in statute, our tests may become subject to extensive FDA requirements or our business may otherwise be adversely affected. If the FDA were to actively regulate our LDTs, we could experience reduced revenue or increased costs, which could adversely affect our business, prospects, results of operations and financial condition. If required, the regulatory marketing authorization process required to bring our current or future LDTs into compliance may involve, among other things, successfully completing additional clinical validations and submitting to and obtaining clearance from the FDA for a premarket clearance (510(k)) submission or authorization for a de novo submission or approval of a premarket approval application. Furthermore, pending legislative proposals, if enacted, such as the VALID Act, could create new or different regulatory and compliance burdens on us and could have a negative effect on our ability to keep products on the market or develop new products, which could have a material effect on our business. In the event that the FDA requires marketing authorization of our LDTs in the future, the FDA may not ultimately grant any clearance, authorization or approval requested by us in a timely manner, may limit our indication in a way that is not commercially desirable, or refuse to provide such authorization at all. In addition, if the FDA inspects our laboratory in relation to the marketing of any FDA-authorized test, any enforcement action the FDA takes might not be limited to the FDA-authorized test carried by us and could encompass our other testing services.
Current wording
If the FDA were to determine that certain tests offered by us as LDTs are subject to regulation for any reason, including new rules, policies or guidance, or due to changes in statute, our tests may become subject to extensive FDA requirements and our business may otherwise be adversely affected. If the FDA were to actively regulate our LDTs, we could experience reduced revenue or increased costs, which could adversely affect our business, prospects, results of operations and financial condition. If required, the regulatory marketing authorization process required to bring our current or future LDTs into compliance may involve, among other things, successfully completing additional clinical validations and submitting to and obtaining clearance from the FDA for a premarket clearance (510(k)) submission or authorization for a de novo submission or approval of a premarket approval application. Furthermore, pending legislative proposals, if enacted, such as the VALID Act, could create new or different regulatory and compliance burdens on us and could have a negative effect on our ability to keep products on the market or develop new products, which could have a material effect on our business. In the event that the FDA requires marketing authorization of our LDTs in the future, the FDA may not ultimately grant any clearance, authorization or approval requested by us in a timely manner, may limit our indication in a way that is not commercially desirable, or refuse to provide such authorization at all. In addition, if the FDA inspects our laboratory in relation to the marketing of any FDA-authorized test, any enforcement action the FDA takes might not be limited to the FDA-authorized test carried by us and could encompass our other testing services.