The judge advances the Health Particle antitrust trial against Epic

During the weekend, a federal judge issued an important decision in the Health Particle antitrust trial against EPIC, allowing the main complaints to proceed while rejecting the others.

Judge Naomi Buchwald, from the South New York District, authorized three of the Federal Antitrust Particle allegations to move forward, as well as allegation of tort interference in commercial contracts.

The particle data platform filed the trial against the DSE Epic giant last September following a dispute of several months. The startup’s complaint allegedly alleged that the DSE supplier uses his domination on the market to prevent competition in the space of the paid platform.

The space of the payer platform refers to the emerging market of digital platforms which allow payers to access and analyze the data of long-scale patients for various purposes, in particular by improving the coordination of care, by designing population health programs or by rationalizing the treatment of complaints.

The complaint of Particle alleys that Epic prevents the startup from competing in this space by preventing particle customers from recovering the EPIC data.

At the center of the dispute is Carequality, a national data exchange framework that Epic plays a dominant role in the operation. The particles is based on the healthcare company to recover patient files on behalf of its customers, but the startup lightens that Epic has selectively restricted its access, thus cutting it from a crucial clinical data pipeline.

Particle argues that Epic has exploited its influence on the care company to tilt the market in its favor and eliminated competition – saying that this behavior is equivalent to “unprecedented” effort from the market power which removes innovation and controls the access of payers to patient files. The company alleges that Epic tactics have prompted customers to abandon their contracts and prevent the training of new relationships with customers.

In its decision of September 5, Buchwald said that the particles had provided credible information to support its assertions that EPIC is engaged in anti -competitive behavior – enough to avoid the dismissal of the case at this preliminary stage. However, she rejected several complaints alleging that Epic has embarked on the conspiracy, defamation and commercial defamation.

Particle CEO Jason Prestinario said he was “very happy” from Buchwald’s decision in a LinkedIn post.

“While some of the complaints did not survive, the EPIC request in dismissal has been rejected in the 3 of the main monopolization of the antitrust claims. This is the first time that the history of Epic for an antitrust file against them have arrived at this point. It is the next step towards a greater victory for better patient care and more control of patients on their medical information,” he wrote.

An epic spokesperson sent a statement to News from Medcity Noting that the company is impatiently awaiting the next step in the legal process.

“The court rejected the majority of particles allegations. [on Particle] was quite reasonable. Epic has worked and will continue to work to protect the confidentiality of patient data. We are impatiently awaiting the opportunity to present evidence to prevail over the remaining complaints, “wrote the spokesperson.

The next step for the parties is the discovery phase, which could shed light on how the data sharing rules are applied and what is at stake for the future of paid platforms.

Photo: Andrii Sedykh, Getty Images