You do realize actual patients got completely wrong results on their blood tests, thereby potentially jeopardizing their ongoing treatment for pretty serious conditions? How is it a "non-violet" crime when we're talking about potentially killing patients due to fraud?
I agree with you from a moral perspective, and think that's far more important than the financial aspect. But she was convicted of other crimes.
Perhaps the judge can factor that kind of thing into the sentencing; I'm not sure.
In an ideal world (not that we live in anything resembling a perfect world) it seems to me that the harm you're talking about would be remedied in separate criminal and/or civil trials. Certainly, unless I'm mistaken, the victims of the fraudulent tests could still file civil suits.
I'm not a lawyer, in case it wasn't blindingly clear.
