Here’s an interesting legal battle which puts a health system’s Epic EMR center stage. Idaho-based St. Luke’s Health System, which is facing an antitrust challenge by a competing hospital, is responding to that challenge, in part, by citing the benefits of having an Epic system in place.
St. Luke’s was hit with an antitrust complaint lodged by Saint Alphonsus Medical Center, which claims that the system’s acquisition of Saltzer Medical Group of Nampa, Idaho will allow it to control nearly 80 percent of that market. The antitrust case, which involves both the FTC and the state of Idaho, is now before the U S District Court, reports EHR Intelligence.
During the proceedings last week, discussion focused on St. Luke’s decision to implement an Epic EMR, a move which reportedly cost $200 million. The install won’t be complete until 2017, according to the Idaho Statesman.
Though there’s a long road to walk before the Epic system will be complete, executives are already touting its benefits, with St. Luke’s CMIO testifying that Epic will allow patients to become engaged with their care, leading to better outcomes.
More importantly, for the purpose of the court proceedings, adoption and implementation of the Epic system will eventually serve as the backbone of a St. Luke’s affiliate program under which independent doctors can use the system while paying only 15 percent of the costs, EHR Intelligence notes.
Saint Alphonsus Medical Center, for its part, argues that St. Luke’s reliance on the EMR is largely smoke and mirrors. In its joint pre-trial memorandum, the facility dismisses the claims regarding Epic’s benefits for Salzer as “speculative” and not a sufficient step to justify the acquisition. The memorandum also notes that Salzer already has its own EMR in place, making the purported benefits of substituting Epic even more tenuous.
So, what to make of this? If nothing else, regardless of whether Epic contributes to the potential for this acquisition, the throwing down of the Epic gauntlet in court point to the prestige the vendor has achieved. Apparently, St. Luke’s feels that citing the availability of a system that won’t be fully implemented for five whole years is a workable defense given Epic’s high profile.
I find myself wondering whether a defense based on having another of the so-called “big 5” EMRs would even be considered. Given Epic’s dominant position in the industry, it’s possible that it’s the only vendor whose name would do the trick.
