Particle Health filed a motion in response to Epic Systems filing to dismiss a court complaint that the electronic health record giant violated a federal antitrust statute.

Epic has denied any wrongdoing and pledged to protect patient privacy and said in a statement to Healthcare IT News that it would "vigorously defend itself against Particle’s meritless claims." 

"This case is about Epic’s unlawful and widespread campaign to eliminate competition in the payer-platform market," Particle explained in its preliminary statement on Thursday.

The data exchange and analytics company vehemently claims that Epic acted with intent and at one point, said 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 lawsuit last month that the case – Particle HealthInc. v. Epic Systems Corporation – was retribution for protecting patient privacy. 

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

That dispute ultimately led to some differing opinions on data exchange connection rules, according to a Carequality statement in October: 

"This claim highlighted differences in interpretation of certain Carequality technical requirements," the organization said. "With the assistance of a subject matter expert, it was demonstrated that Particle Health was not using a 'masking gateway.'"

Particle terminated its contracts with three specific organizations, each of which were disconnected from Carequality for at least 12 months. During the media sparring, Epic said that the Carequality dispute ruling confirmed that it and its customers took appropriate action to protect patient privacy.

The analytics company said that "contrary to Epic’s conclusory claims," it plausibly argues its allegations that Epic has employed "a variety of illegal means that continue to this day," including:

1. "Threatening Particle’s customers unless they agree to stop working with Particle."
2. "Instigating and then very publicly pursuing a baseless industry dispute in an attempt to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about Particle."
3. "Making repeated defamatory statements."

“We remain confident in the strength of the case and that our claims will survive the motion," a Particle spokesperson said Thursday by email along with the filed document addressing Epic's basis 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 to put more dollars in its pockets," the company said in the new court filing.

"Epic can try 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 told Healthcare IT News by email in response 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 treatment."

Andrea Fox is senior editor of Healthcare IT News.
Email: afox@himss.org
Healthcare IT News is a HIMSS Media publication.