FTC Epic probe could reshape interoperability for 280M patients

Health IT and clinical informatics leaders should track the FTC's Epic investigation closely: if regulators force broader data sharing, hospitals and clinics using Epic may need to renegotiate data-access contracts and open APIs, with direct consequences for care coordination, research, and patient engagement through MyChart.

The Federal Trade Commission has opened an antitrust investigation into Epic Systems, the Verona, Wisconsin-based electronic health record company, focused on how it grants or withholds access to health data. According to two sources familiar with the matter, the FTC has sent civil investigative demands to companies across the health technology industry seeking details about Epic's data access and interoperability practices. The stakes are enormous: healthcare providers using Epic products collectively treat more than 280 million people in the United States, while Epic's opt-in research platform holds data from 310 million patients. An Epic spokesperson denied wrongdoing, stating, "We're leaders in interoperability to support patient care, and we do not engage in anticompetitive behavior."

“

The Federal Trade Commission has opened an antitrust investigation into Epic Systems, the Verona, Wisconsin-based electronic health record company, focused on how it grants or withholds access to health data.

The probe places Epic's data practices at the center of a broader fight over healthcare interoperability and digital competition. Epic is the dominant electronic health record vendor in much of the U.S., with deep integration into hospital workflows, the MyChart patient portal, and a growing research business. Regulators and rivals have long argued that Epic's scale creates high switching costs and that its control over data flows can function as a competitive moat. The FTC's interest suggests that federal enforcers may be applying monopolization and refusal-to-deal theories to health data, an area that has more often been policed through interoperability rules under the 21st Century Cures Act and information-blocking regulations. The investigation is not public in the sense of a formal complaint; it appears to be at an early, investigatory stage where the FTC uses compulsory process to understand market dynamics.

The FTC action does not exist in a vacuum. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Epic in December, accusing the company of shutting out would-be rivals by holding data hostage. The state alleges that Epic uses restrictions and fees to prevent healthcare systems from using competitors, effectively locking customers into its ecosystem. Epic has denied those claims, and it asserts that its products are interoperable with outside systems and that healthcare provider customers, not Epic itself, control access to patient records. Separately, Particle Health, a competitor in the market for platforms that insurers use to review and store medical records at scale, has sued Epic over what it characterizes as barriers imposed on potential Particle clients. Epic has called that suit baseless. These parallel proceedings give the FTC a sizable body of allegations and market evidence to draw upon.

The implications for hospitals, payers, and health tech companies are significant. If the FTC concludes that Epic's data-access restrictions constitute anticompetitive conduct, potential remedies could include interoperability mandates, restrictions on data-access fees, transparency requirements for APIs, or even structural changes to Epic's contracts with health systems. Even without formal findings, the investigation could prompt Epic to adjust its business practices preemptively to reduce legal risk. For providers, broader data sharing could lower some integration costs but may also require new governance, security, and compliance investments. For insurers and startups, greater data portability could open markets that have been difficult to enter.