Particle Health sent shockwaves through the healthcare industry last Monday after filing an antitrust lawsuit against Epic Systems, the biggest player in the electronic health record (EHR) space. Ever since, Epic has made statements to various platforms, such as Healthcare IT News and Fierce Healthcare, defending their stance and decrying Particle Health’s use of health data. While the widely publicized feud has been ongoing since April, this latest move from Particle Health will stretch out the dispute for many more months—if not years.
To summarize: things are getting ugly, and both companies are doubling down. When a slugfest like this is taken to the courtroom, it can be tempting to throw your hat in for one party over another, but arguing over who is “right” or “wrong” can take the focus away from the real issue at hand. At the end of the day, the dispute between Particle Health and Epic is about balancing privacy protections with access to health data, a struggle we in the healthcare world know all too well.
As stewards of patient data, we must constantly walk the tightrope between privacy and access, never sacrificing one to overcompensate for the other. On one side, Epic defends the importance of privacy, citing concerns about misusing protected health information (PHI) based on HIPAA’s policies. On the other, Particle Health champions improving access, arguing that timely and comprehensive data sharing is essential for better healthcare outcomes.
When privacy and access are at odds and neither side can compromise, where does that leave us? In my initial commentary about this dispute, I emphasized the importance of trust between providers, payers and the patients they serve. Patients have a right to understand how their data is being used, and transparency around these processes is crucial to establishing trust. Unfortunately, the intricacies of how patient information flows through national networks remains unclear to most people, even those of us in the industry at times. This lack of clarity and transparency breeds uncertainty, which creates hurdles in the broader push for the more open exchange of health data. And public showdowns such as this shine a spotlight on the criticality of the trust factor.
Carequality, the interoperability framework at the center of the Epic vs. Particle Health dispute, facilitates the exchange of roughly 1 billion documents each month—an unprecedented amount of health data. As more data flows across these networks, the more crucial it is for us to be vigilant. While increasing the fluidity of health data exchange brings enormous value to the quality of care, it also opens the door to risks.
As leaders in healthcare who work every day to maintain the delicate balance between protecting privacy and improving access, we have a responsibility to maintain transparency and establish safeguards as the flow of data increases. This is why purpose-built platforms for health data exchange are so important. By giving patients and providers more control over when, how and why data is shared, purpose-built systems help accelerate access to health information across vast networks without sacrificing security.
In light of this latest news cycle around the Epic and Particle Health dispute, it’s important not to lose sight of the real issue here. What’s happening between Epic and Particle Health is an opportunity for us as a healthcare community to reexamine the balance between privacy and access as health data exchange accelerates. The challenge is to find a middle ground—one that protects patient data without stifling innovation and progress. Whatever the outcome of this dispute, it’s clear that the result will ripple far beyond these two companies, shaping the future of health data exchange on a much larger scale.