[ad_1]
Over the weekend, a federal judge issued a significant ruling in Particle Health’s antitrust lawsuit against Epic, allowing key claims to proceed while dismissing others.
Judge Naomi Buchwald of the Southern District of New York permitted three of Particle’s federal antitrust claims to move forward, as well as a claim of tortious interference with business contracts.
Data platform Particle filed the lawsuit against EHR behemoth Epic last September following a monthslong dispute. The startup’s complaint alleged that the EHR vendor is using its dominance in the market to prevent competition in the payer platform space.
The payer platform space refers to the emerging market for digital platforms that allow payers to access and analyze patient data at scale for a variety of purposes, including improving care coordination, designing population health programs or streamlining claims processing.
Particle’s complaint alleges that Epic is preventing the startup from competing in this space by blocking Particle customers from retrieving Epic-held data.
At the center of the dispute is Carequality, a nationwide data exchange framework that Epic plays a dominant role in operating. Particle relies on Carequality to retrieve patient records on behalf of its customers, but the startup alleges that Epic has selectively restricted its access, therefore cutting it off from a crucial pipeline of clinical data.
Particle argues that Epic has leveraged its influence over Carequality to tilt the market in its favor and shut out the competition — saying that this behavior amounts to an “unprecedented” exertion of market power that suppresses innovation and controls payers’ access to patient records. The company alleges that Epic’s tactics have driven customers to abandon their contracts, as well prevent new customer relationships from forming.
In her September 5 ruling, Buchwald said that Particle had provided credible information to back up its claims that Epic engaged in anticompetitive behavior — enough to avoid the case’s outright dismissal at this preliminary stage. She did, however, dismiss several claims alleging that Epic engaged in conspiracy, defamation and trade libel.
Particle CEO Jason Prestinario said he is “very pleased” about Buchwald’s ruling in a LinkedIn post.
“While a few of the claims didn’t survive, Epic’s motion to dismiss was DENIED on all 3 of the core monopolization antitrust claims. This is the first time in Epic’s history that an antitrust case against them has gotten to this point. It’s the next step to a bigger victory for better patient care and more patient control of their medical info,” he wrote.
An Epic spokesperson sent a statement to MedCity News noting that the company is looking forward to the next stage of the legal process.
“The Court dismissed the majority of Particle’s claims. The ruling included the observation that Carequality’s ‘imposition of the corrective action plan [on Particle] was entirely reasonable.’ Epic has worked and will continue to work to protect the privacy of patients’ data. We look forward to the opportunity to present evidence to prevail on the remaining claims,” the spokesperson wrote.
The next step for the parties is the discovery phase, which could shed new light on how data sharing rules are enforced and what’s at stake for the future of payer platforms.
Photo: Andrii Sedykh, Getty Images
[ad_2]
Source link
