Particle Health responds to Epic’s motion to dismiss

Particle Health filed the motion in response to Epic Systems’ filing to dismiss a lawsuit alleging the electronic health record giant violated a federal antitrust law.

Epic has denied any wrongdoing and pledged to protect patient privacy, it said in a statement Health IT news that it would “vigorously defend itself against Particle’s meritless claims.”

“This case is about Epic’s illegal and widespread campaign to eliminate competition in the payer platform market,” Particle explained in its preliminary statement Thursday.

The data exchange and analytics company strongly alleges that Epic acted with intent, at one point saying it “sufficiently alleges actual malice” by the EHR vendor against it to prevent competition in the payer interoperability market.

Epic said in its filing to dismiss the antitrust suit last month that the case – Particle healthInc. v. Epic Systems Corporation – was retaliatory to protect patient privacy.

The EHR vendor took the position that Particle had enabled some customers to obtain confidential patient records under pretense on the Carequality health information exchange network, and when it found out, filed a dispute with the HIE.

This dispute ultimately led to some differing opinions on data exchange connection rules, according to a Declaration of care in October:

“This claim highlighted differences in the interpretation of certain technical requirements of Carequality,” the organization said. “With the assistance of a subject matter expert, it was demonstrated that Particle Health did not use a ‘masking gateway’.”

Particle terminated its contracts with three specific organizations that had been disconnected from Carequality for at least 12 months. During the media sparring, Epic said the judgment in the Carequality dispute confirmed that it and its customers took appropriate steps to protect patient privacy.

The research firm said that “contrary to Epic’s conclusory claims,” ​​it plausibly argues its claims that Epic used “a number of illegal means that continue to this day,” including:

1. “Threatening Particle’s customers unless they agree to stop working with Particle.”
2. “To instigate and then very publicly pursue a baseless industrial dispute in an attempt to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about Particle.”
3. “Repeated defamatory statements.”

“We remain confident in the strength of the case and that our claims will survive the motion,” a Particle spokesman said Thursday via email, along with the filing, which addresses Epic’s grounds for dismissal point by point.

“Particle’s seventy-eight-page complaint provides a step-by-step description of how a monopolist desperate for control is willing to destroy an innovator with an objectively better product in order to put more dollars in its pockets,” the company said in the new court. archiving.

“Epic may attempt to defend its actions at the appropriate time, but it identifies no basis to dismiss the complaint now. The motion should be denied.”

“Particle’s claims are inconsistent with reality,” an Epic spokesperson said Health IT News by email as a reply on Friday. “Epic and its healthcare organization customers will not stand by and allow patient health data to be misused under the guise of patient care.”

Andrea Fox is senior editor of Healthcare IT News.
Email: [email protected]
Healthcare IT News is a HIMSS Media publication.