Particle Health has filed a response to Epic Systems’ motion to dismiss a court complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws. Epic Systems, a leader in electronic health records (EHR), has firmly denied any wrongdoing and expressed its intention to vigorously defend against what it describes as meritless claims from Particle.
In its preliminary statement, Particle Health accuses Epic of engaging in a widespread campaign aimed at eliminating competition within the payer-platform market. The analytics company asserts that Epic acted with deliberate intent to obstruct competition, describing the situation as reflective of “actual malice” directed against them.
Epic Systems contends that the antitrust lawsuit, labeled Particle Health Inc. v. Epic Systems Corporation, is merely a retaliatory action taken in response to their efforts to maintain patient privacy. The EHR vendor accuses Particle of facilitating access to sensitive patient information through the Carequality health information exchange, leading Epic to file disputes related to the exchange’s data sharing rules.
As part of this ongoing dispute, Particle Health ceased contracts with three organizations that had been disconnected from Carequality for over a year due to these concerns. Epic insists that its actions were justified to protect patient data and privacy, supported by a statement from Carequality that acknowledged differences in interpreting the exchange’s technical requirements.
Particle Health has outlined several claims against Epic, alleging illegal practices intended to intimidate its customers, instigate a desperate industry dispute, and make defamatory statements. In their response, a Particle spokesperson expressed confidence in the viability of their case, detailing how their seventy-eight-page complaint illustrates a monopolistic behavior by Epic, aimed at quashing competition to enhance its profits.
An Epic spokesperson countered these claims, stating that the allegations are disconnected from reality and reaffirmed their commitment to safeguarding patient health data from misuse.
The outcome of this legal battle could have significant implications not only for the companies involved but for the broader healthcare technology landscape, particularly regarding data interoperability and competition. As the court proceedings unfold, both parties are expected to provide further evidence in defense of their positions.