RDx Bioscience — MSO and Marketing Kickbacks
Clinical Laboratory Pays Over $13 Million to Resolve Kickback Allegations
Source: U.S. Department of Justice
TL;DR: Clinical Laboratory Pays Over $13 Million to Resolve Kickback Allegations This case resulted in a $13 Million resolution and demonstrates the impact of whistleblower protections in recovering funds from fraud.
Summary
Clinical laboratory RDx Bioscience Inc. and its owner/CEO agreed to pay over $13 million (including a federal component and a New Jersey component) to resolve DOJ allegations involving illegal kickbacks and medically unnecessary testing billed to Medicare and Medicaid. DOJ described alleged kickback pathways that included commissions to marketers based on the volume/value of federal program referrals, purported MSO payments characterized as investment returns, payments framed as consulting or medical director fees, kickbacks tied to substance abuse recovery center referrals, and specimen collection fees paid to staff at referring providers.
Our Take
Lab kickback cases are rarely about a single bad arrangement—they're about a referral engine. The useful internal evidence is usually financial and operational: marketer agreements, compensation tied to "production," ROI-style MSO payments, provider-facing pitch materials, and ordering spikes that correlate with specific marketers or facilities. If you're seeing pressure to normalize payments as "consulting," "investment," or "collection fees," preserve the full context: who proposed the structure, how payments were calculated, and how ordering behavior changed after money started moving.
Read the full article from the original source:
View Original ArticleOpens in a new tab. Content from U.S. Department of Justice.
Notice
The summaries above are based on publicly available information released by the U.S. Department of Justice and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice, investigative findings, or allegations by Disclosure Strategy. Our commentary reflects general, experience-based observations about how False Claims Act matters commonly arise and is not a statement about any party's liability.