Trouble At The Top: Epic Faces Mounting Antitrust Allegations Even As It Grows
Epic won nearly 70% of hospital deals in 2024.
But with that dominance has come increasing scrutiny. Not from regulators yet, but from the companies who say they are being locked out of the future of healthcare innovation.
This week, CureIS Healthcare filed a sweeping lawsuit in federal court accusing Epic of unlawful efforts to block competition. CureIS alleges that Epic has systematically interfered with its business, pressured mutual customers to abandon its products, misappropriated trade secrets, and engaged in false advertising - all in an effort to expand Epic's control over adjacent healthcare IT markets. The complaint paints a picture of a company using its EHR and revenue cycle management hegemony as a springboard to colonize other sectors of the healthcare technology landscape.
And CureIS isn't alone. Particle Health, a startup focused on health data interoperability, filed a separate antitrust lawsuit against Epic last year, similarly alleging that the Verona-based company is using its market power to restrict third-party access to health data and thwart efforts at interoperability that could benefit patients and the broader health system.
Together, the lawsuits suggest that while Epic may be beloved by its customers, its tactics regarding smaller, adjacent vendors may be stirring deeper questions about fair competition and innovation.
CureIS is not a household name, but for more than a decade it has provided software that help Medicaid and Medicare managed care organizations (MCOs) clean up and reconcile enrollment, claims, and billing data - an often messy corner of healthcare IT. These tools, such as EnrollmentCURE and RecoveryCURE, rely on data integrations with technology platforms like Epic's EHR and RCM systems to function effectively.
According to CureIS's complaint, Epic has deliberately prevented those integrations, blocking CureIS from accessing the data its products require. The lawsuit alleges that Epic pressured mutual customers to terminate their contracts with CureIS, sometimes even after those customers had acknowledged that Epic's competing offerings were inferior or incomplete.
Among other issues, the complaint claims that Epic used confidential information shared under non-disclosure agreements to develop its own versions of CureIS products. CureIS says Epic induced customers to share detailed architecture and implementation documents, only to later promise to replicate the functionality internally—often using that very documentation as a roadmap.
More seriously, the lawsuit alleges that Epic imposed an 'Epic-First' policy, in which 'any entity utilizing Epic's EHR or RCM software must use Epic's versions of other products too, if it has a version of the product in question.'
CureIS argues that this conduct not only harmed its own business but also left customers with worse tools and less flexibility, ultimately undermining efficiency and innovation in a sector that already struggles with outdated workflows and fragmented systems.
CureIS's complaint echoes themes raised earlier this year by Particle Health, which similarly claims that Epic's business practices are impeding fair access to patient data and suppressing interoperability. Particle's focus is on the 'last mile' of health data—getting information from disparate systems to where it's needed most. The company argues that Epic's control over the nation's health records gives it undue influence over what data is shared, how it's shared, and who can participate in that exchange.
The core concern in both suits is not just Epic's size, but how that size and market power is allegedly being used. In both cases, plaintiffs argue that Epic is no longer simply competing on the merits of its core products, but actively leveraging its power to prevent others from doing so.
This dynamic would be easier to dismiss if Epic's platform weren't, by most accounts, genuinely effective. The company is trusted by its users in a way that few software platforms are. It routinely scores top marks for customer satisfaction. It delivers deeply integrated functionality. And for hospital IT departments besieged with too many vendors that don't deliver, Epic has become a true partner.
That customer devotion has helped fuel a virtuous cycle. Epic is now expanding beyond EHR and RCM into a broad suite of tools that serve payers, pharmaceutical companies, laboratories and even consumers. By doing so, it is building out network effects that reinforce its central role in the healthcare ecosystem, connecting stakeholders who all increasingly rely on Epic's infrastructure to operate, communicate, and exchange data.
From its Cosmos data platform, which aggregates clinical data for research, to its health plan integration features, Epic is creating a flywheel where each new product reinforces demand for others. But that same flywheel, in the eyes of its critics, can look like a walled garden—one where innovation flows only from the center, and others must knock (or sue) to get in.
The lawsuit comes against a broader regulatory and legal backdrop that is increasingly skeptical of dominant tech platforms, and how they might be leveraging their power.
CureIS explicitly cites Epic's alleged information blocking as a violation of the 21st Century Cures Act and the associated federal regulations implemented by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT. These rules prohibit "actors"—including health IT developers—from interfering with the access, exchange, or use of electronic health information. The complaint accuses Epic of exactly that: denying CureIS and mutual customers the data access necessary for CureIS's software to function, despite customer authorization, and without any valid exception under the rule. In a post-Cures Act environment, such conduct isn't just anticompetitive—it may be illegal under federal information blocking provisions.
Outside of healthcare, courts are increasingly drawing hard lines around similar forms of platform dominance. In a major ruling last year, Judge Amit Mehta found that Google's $20 billion in annual payments to Apple to remain Safari's default search engine constituted illegal anticompetitive behavior.
More recently, the U.S. Department of Justice signaled it is seeking structural remedies that could force a breakup between Google's Chrome browser and its search advertising business. Apple, too, has drawn judicial ire: despite a prior court order requiring it to loosen App Store restrictions that prevent developers from steering users to alternate payment options, a federal judge recently found that Apple continues to flout the order, delaying compliance in ways that sustain its control over app monetization. Together, these cases underscore a growing legal recognition that platform power, when abused to entrench incumbency and exclude competition, is not only harmful but actionable.
"Epic believes in free and fair competition, and we also believe our customers are in the best position to choose the right solutions to meet their needs—whether with Epic or by adopting other products and services," an Epic spokesperson said in a request for comment.
After two lawsuits alleging unlawful tactics that implicate antitrust concerns, however, the pattern is increasingly difficult to ignore.
The company declined to answer specific questions about the case, including whether an 'Epic-First' policy exists.
As Epic pushes further into adjacent markets including telehealth, CRM, prior authorization, and more, vendors and investors alike are watching closely. If the company is truly replicating third-party functionality and using integration as a chokepoint, or representing 'vaporware' as a reason to avoid competitors, it raises fundamental questions about the rules of the road in digital health.
These questions are especially urgent in light of Epic's market trajectory. Epic continues to win the majority of hospital deals and gain even more ground, especially among large hospitals and health systems. With nearly universal adoption among top-tier academic centers and continued wins among regional health systems, Epic's position is not just dominant—it's bordering on infrastructural.
That kind of power brings responsibility not just to customers, but to the broader healthcare innovation ecosystem. Epic's platform is central to how care is delivered, how value is measured, and how data flows. Whether it is also central to how innovation happens—or whether it is increasingly a bottleneck—is now a question for courts, policymakers, and the market to weigh.
Epic's size and success could make it a gravitational center that lifts up the innovation ecosystem around it. But if its conduct instead undermines startups that offer real value - especially in underserved areas like Medicaid managed care - then lawsuits like CureIS's may be just the beginning.
Healthcare needs platform players that enable innovation, not just defend territory. Epic may be at a crossroads: the company's core EHR product is the reason it continues to gain market share, yet its insistence on leveraging that EHR to advance its growth efforts may bring the type of scrutiny and lawsuits that threaten that success.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
English cricket goes into bat with bulk of £520m Hundred windfall
English cricket's governing body will on Wednesday hail a landmark moment for the sport when it announces that three-quarters of the deals to bring in new investors to The Hundred have been completed. Sky News understands that the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) plans to issue a statement confirming that it has received proceeds from the sale of stakes in Birmingham Phoenix, London Spirit, Manchester Originals, Northern Superchargers, Southern Brave and Welsh Fire. The two other franchise deals - involving the Oval Invincibles and Nottinghamshire's Trent Rockets - will be completed on October 1, the ECB is expected to say. One insider said a statement was likely to be issued on Wednesday, although they cautioned that the timing could slip. When all eight deals are concluded, they will generate a collective windfall of £520m for the sport's strained coffers. Last week, Sky News revealed that unresolved talks between India's richest family and Surrey County Cricket Club - which hosts the Oval Invincibles Hundred team - were threatening to delay the delivery of a vast windfall for the sport. One of the outstanding issues relates to the name under which the Oval Invincibles will play in future years, with the Ambani family keen to use a derivative of the Mumbai Indians brand that it also owns. This week's announcement will come after months of talks after the ECB and the eight Hundred-playing counties agreed exclusivity periods with their preferred investors. The backers include some of the world's most prominent financiers, billionaires and technology executives. Following protracted talks, the ECB has agreed to revised terms with the investors, with host venues now retaining control of their teams' intellectual property rights. The investors will also hold an effective veto over future expansion of the Hundred, while the ECB will be barred from launching any other short-form professional version of the sport while the Hundred remains operational. Meanwhile, the governing body will retain full ownership of the competition itself as well as controlling the regulation of it and the window within which it can be played each year. The ECB has been waiting for investors in the eight franchises to sign participation agreements since an auction in February which valued the participating teams at just over £975m. Some of the deals involve the investors owning 49% of their respective franchise, while India's Sun TV Network has taken full ownership of Yorkshire's Northern Superchargers. The proceeds of its stake sales will be distributed to all of English cricket's professional counties as well as £50m being delivered to the grassroots game. The windfalls are being seen as a lifeline for many cash-strapped counties which have been struggling under significant debt piles for many years. The most valuable Hundred sale saw a group of technology tycoons, including executives from Google and Microsoft, paying about £145m for a 49% stake in Lords-based London Spirit. This year's kicks off next week with fixtures including a clash between the two London-based franchises. The ECB declined to comment.
New York Post
9 minutes ago
- New York Post
8 signs that you should leave a restaurant, experts say
Not every restaurant outing offers a five-star experience — and diners don't always need to taste the food to know something is off. From management gaps to social media hype, key signs can tip you off early to a disappointing experience, say restaurant insiders. These red flags suggest a restaurant may be struggling with service, quality, or culture, according to experts. Any of these sound familiar when it comes to a restaurant you know? 1. There's no management presence 'Great managers are visible,' Salar Sheik, a restaurant consultant based in Los Angeles, told Fox News Digital. 'They touch tables, support staff, and keep the energy up.' In addition to operational duties like working with vendors and managing inventory, managers should be greeting customers, taking their feedback, and helping out servers as needed, according to Indeed. 'If you can't tell who's in charge, it might be because no one is,' Sheik warned. 7 From management gaps to social media hype, key signs can tip you off early to a disappointing experience, say restaurant insiders. hedgehog94 – 2. It's overloaded with influencers While social media influencers can boost a restaurant's identity and draw people in, experts note they could be getting freebies or special treatment. 'When every post or review is from a hosted experience, I can't trust that,' Candy Hom, an Atlanta-based food critic, tour guide, and chef, told Allrecipes. Their ring lights and food photo shoots can also put a damper on the experiences of other customers. 'If it feels more like a photo shoot than a place to break bread, odds are the experience is built more for the 'gram than the guest,' Sheik said. 7 While social media influencers can boost a restaurant's identity and draw people in, experts note they could be getting freebies or special treatment. Manpeppe – 3. The place is empty A restaurant with low traffic could also have slower food rotation, leading to fewer fresh ingredients, according to insiders. Context matters, Sheik said, but beware of dining rooms that are empty at peak hours. 'Consistently empty restaurants often point to a loss of community trust – whether from poor service, declining quality, or mismanagement,' according to Sheik. 7 A restaurant with low traffic could also have slower food rotation, leading to fewer fresh ingredients, according to insiders. Seventyfour – 4. The staff argues with you The customer might not always be right, but experts say an argumentative staff member could be a sign of poor service standards and a breakdown among the team. 'If they mess something up, they should try to make it up to you,' Hom told Allrecipes. A waiter at a celebrity-owned restaurant once split her table's receipt five ways instead of six – then blamed the fact that he usually serves tables of five, Hom said. 'Even if the food was good, the experience was ruined,' she added. 7 The customer might not always be right, but experts say an argumentative staff member could be a sign of poor service standards and a breakdown among the team. JackF – 5. Employees aren't treated well 'If I hear and read about staffers alleging not-great work environments and management issues over and over again from trusted sources … I take those to heart,' Nadia Chaudhury, an editor at Eater, told Allrecipes. Sheik said there are also signs to watch for while at the restaurant. Start and end your day informed with our newsletters Morning Report and Evening Update: Your source for today's top stories Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters 'If you hear managers talking down to staff in front of guests, if your server seems visibly anxious or afraid to make a mistake, or if there's no energy, no personality, no smiles, it often means the culture is toxic or punitive,' he said. 6. It's dirty Sticky menus and lipstick-stained glasses are bad enough, but Sheik pointed to the restrooms as the real test of cleanliness. 7 'If you hear managers talking down to staff in front of guests, if your server seems visibly anxious or afraid to make a mistake, or if there's no energy, no personality, no smiles, it often means the culture is toxic or punitive,' experts warn. JackF – 'If those aren't clean, I guarantee you the kitchen's not being held to a higher standard,' he said. Cleanliness is one of the most controllable elements of running a restaurant, he added. 'If the team can't manage that, they're likely failing at much more complex things, too.' 7. Servers don't know the menu 'If your server has to guess ingredients or check on every question, it signals poor training and a lack of pride in the product,' Sheik said. 7 'If your server has to guess ingredients or check on every question, it signals poor training and a lack of pride in the product,' Salar Sheik, a restaurant consultant based in Los Angeles, said. David Pereiras – Menu knowledge is key to providing guests with accurate allergen information and enhancing their overall experience, according to Toast, a restaurant management system. 8. You're being upsold aggressively If you're being upsold too much, it can be another sign of trouble. 7 If you're being upsold too much, it can be another sign of trouble, according to experts. estradaanton – Servers should be enlightening guests, not harassing them, experts claim. 'Suggestive selling is part of the job,' Sheik said. 'But when it feels like a script or desperation, it often means the restaurant is struggling to hit numbers and pushing sales at the cost of genuine hospitality.'
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
Watch live: Peter Welch unveils legislation to combat Trump ‘sick tax'
Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) will speak Tuesday afternoon on recently introduced legislation targeting President Trump's 'sick tax,' a provision in the GOP-led spending and tax package that will require Medicaid enrollees to pay more out of pocket when visiting a health care provider. Welch, along with other Democrats, has in recent weeks pushed back against sweeping cuts and reforms to Medicaid included in the 'big, beautiful bill' that Trump signed into law on July 4. 'As a result, seniors, children, people with disabilities, and working families already fighting to make ends meet will be forced to pay an out-of-pocket cost before they can receive vital health care services,' the Vermont Democrat wrote in a statement introducing the Repealing the Trump Sick Tax Act. 'This 'sick tax' imposed by President Trump and Congressional Republicans will force Medicaid enrollees to choose between paying their bills and receiving vital care every time they need to see a provider,' he added. Welch's remarks are scheduled to begin at 3:30 p.m. EDT. Watch the live video above.
