Epic Systems sued by CureIS Healthcare for alleged 'scheme to destroy' its business
CureIS Healthcare, a managed care services company, filed a civil lawsuit against Epic Systems on Monday night, alleging the electronic health record (EHR) giant has carried out a "multi-prong scheme to destroy" CureIS' business.
CureIS offers technology and managed services for government programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and other state health initiatives. In a 40-page complaint that was made public on Tuesday, CureIS claims that Epic has interfered with its customer relationships, blocked access to necessary data and raised unfounded security concerns, among other anti-competitive practices.
Epic, the leader in the EHR market, didn't immediately respond to CNBC's request for comment.
The lawsuit is the latest legal battle facing Epic, which houses medical records for around 280 million patients in the U.S. and offers other health-care tools. Data startup Particle Health filed an antitrust lawsuit against the company in September, alleging Epic has used its dominance in the EHR space to stifle competition in other markets that use that data.
"Particle's claims are baseless," Epic told CNBC in a statement at the time.
CureIS' suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The company is being represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, the same firm that's representing Particle.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
44 minutes ago
- Axios
Congress' "doc fix" spurs value-based care concerns
Physicians are divided over how the massive Republican budget bill moving through Congress would insulate doctors from future Medicare cuts without continuing financial incentives to provide better care through alternative payment models. Why it matters: The "doc fix" championed by the American Medical Association, among other groups, would solve a long-standing complaint about the way Medicare pays physicians. But some physician groups worry it would maintain a system long criticized for tying pay to the volume of procedures delivered and the number of patients seen. State of play: Physician practices that agree to be paid based on patient outcomes get bigger payouts in exchange for taking on the extra financial risk are in line, under current law, for a pay boost through a key adjustment called the conversion factor, starting next year. But the version of the GOP budget bill that passed the House of Representatives would instead create a single conversion factor for all physicians that's updated based on Medicare's measure of inflation. That would leave providers in the performance-based payment models getting higher payments than currently prescribed from 2026 through 2028, but lower payments than outlined in current law after that through 2035, according to an analysis from Berkeley Research Group viewed by Axios. Primary care physicians and providers embracing value-based care worry that removing an incentive for participating in the models will set back efforts to move Medicare toward a more holistic payment system that's meant to improve patient care. "Signals matter in health care," said Shawn Martin, CEO of the American Academy of Family Physicians. "I think it's a signal [to physicians] of an entrenchment back in fee-for-service." The American College of Physicians, the trade group for internal medicine doctors, told lawmakers last month that it's concerned the policy as structured will disincentivize doctors' participation in value-based care. "It's being marketed as a long-term fix," said Mara McDermott, CEO of value-based care advocacy group Accountable for Health. "I don't read it that way. I read it as creating a new cliff." Zoom out: Many provider groups are also concerned that the legislation doesn't fix the 2.83% cut to physicians' Medicare payment that took effect in January. The American College of Surgeons in a May statement praised lawmakers for recognizing that Medicare physician payments have to be adjusted for inflation, but that the legislation's provision "is not sufficient to make up for the 2025 cut, and more work is needed." The other side: The AMA wrote to House leadership last month that it "strongly supports" the provision to consolidate into one conversion factor and tie updates to inflation starting in 2026. Reductions made to the conversion factor over the past half-decade to keep the physician fee schedule budget neutral have made private practice financially impossible for many doctors, the AMA said. "It is absolutely vital that this issue be addressed," the letter to House leaders said. The AMA disagrees that the provision would discourage participation in alternative payment models, it told Axios in an email. Although payment updates to alternative payment model physicians starting in 2029 would be lower than current law provides, those doctors will still get positive payment updates overall, it said. Between the lines: The policy would go into effect as the Trump administration seeks to leverage Medicare alternative payment models to drive HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s priorities of prevention and personal choice in health care. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told Axios it does not comment on proposed legislation, but said it's continuing to prioritize policies that encourage providers to join payment models that reward high-value and coordinated care. Reality check: Just about all physicians and physician trade organizations agree that stable Medicare payment updates with some link to inflation is necessary to ensure continuous access for Medicare patients, AAFP's Martin said. It's "extraordinarily healthy" for physician advocacy groups to have different opinions on exactly how to reach that conclusion, he added. The Senate is currently debating what to include in its own version of the reconciliation bill.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Senate Republicans want to trim some of Trump's populist tax cuts
WASHINGTON -- Even before the House passed the sweeping bill carrying President Donald Trump's domestic policy agenda, Senate Republicans made it clear that they hoped to make major changes to the legislation before the GOP was done muscling it through Congress. Several have wanted to pare back the cuts to Medicaid, the health care program for the poor, that House Republicans envisioned in the version of the legislation that they approved late last month. A handful have sought to salvage tax credits incentivizing clean energy projects that the House measure would repeal. Many have pushed to grant companies prized tax breaks for the long run, not just for a few years, as their colleagues across the Capitol opted to do. The problem senators face is that each of these changes would be expensive. At $2.4 trillion, the cost of the legislation that barely passed the House is already huge. So Senate Republicans are now hunting for ways to save money, a hazardous task that could involve shaving the ambitions of their colleagues in the House or the White House. On the chopping block are some of Trump's favorite parts of the bill, like not taxing overtime. Republican lawmakers have long been skeptical of some of the president's tax ideas, with the view that the populist policies will not spur the economy like traditional supply-side conservatism can. 'I think it all comes down to what we've got to pay for,' Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said. 'At the end of the day, we've got to pay for pro-growth policies.' The debate is in some ways a classic one on Capitol Hill, where throughout history and without regard to political party, senators have been reluctant to defer to their colleagues in the House, and vice versa. 'It's the Senate, so the Senate is going to do what it damn well wants to do, and that's a good process,' Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said at a Punchbowl News event Wednesday, where he warned that his chamber would pass a bill 'markedly different' from the House measure, pushing enactment of the package well past his party's July 4 deadline. To top Senate Republicans, the most economically powerful tax cuts incentivize companies to make new investments and conduct research. Accelerated depreciation schedules, though, do not grab political attention the way Trump's promises for 'no tax on tips' did, so the House version of the bill only included the business tax breaks through 2029. Senate Republicans want to make the business write-offs a permanent feature of the tax code, a change that they and some economists believe would help encourage more companies to expand. As one way to cover that cost, Senate Republicans are looking at ways to further curb eligibility for a tax cut for overtime pay, including by setting a lower income ceiling for the break and by more strictly defining what counts as overtime, lawmakers said. 'Obviously, there's a lot of dials, whether you're talking about no tax on tips, overtime, any of those,' said Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan. 'How many years did they go? At what level do they stop?' Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, a former car dealer, wants to tighten the House plan for allowing Americans to deduct up to $10,000 in interest on car loans, which would apply to vehicles made in the United States, including used and new cars, as well as all-terrain vehicles and recreational vehicles. Moreno is proposing to limit the tax break, one of Trump's campaign promises, just to loans for new cars. 'We save a lot of money. An RV? Motorcycles? ATVs?' he said. 'That's not the idea; the idea is to help working Americans be able to afford a car.' Senate Republicans are searching for cuts because of growing concern among some conservatives, as well as on Wall Street, about the bill's impact on the country's fiscal situation. While paring back some of Trump's campaign promises could help keep the cost of the legislation near what it was in the House, some lawmakers are calling for much deeper spending cuts. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., has been loudly calling for the legislation, which already includes roughly $1.8 trillion in spending reductions, to slash trillions more. His complaints won him a meeting with top White House officials, including Vice President JD Vance, at the Capitol this week. Johnson's pitch is to remove all of Trump's new tax priorities from the bill and instead focus the legislation exclusively on extending expiring tax cuts from 2017, cutting spending and raising the debt ceiling. Republicans could then tackle White House priorities, and further spending cuts, in a second piece of legislation, Johnson argues. 'You can't do it in one fell swoop. I don't want to criticize what has been done; I want to support what's been done,' he said. 'But I absolutely -- I can't accept that this is the new norm. We need another bite of the apple in this Congress.' Of course, jettisoning much of the president's agenda from the legislation is a tall order, and White House officials have been making the case for the House measures to cut taxes on tips and overtime and for older Americans. 'No Tax on Overtime and No Tax on Tips are presidential priorities that 80 million Americans voted for in November,' Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement. 'They will remain in this historic piece of legislation in order to deliver the largest tax cut in history.' There are other sources of money tempting Senate Republicans. Some are considering cuts to Medicare, though changes to the health care program for older Americans comes with substantial political risks. Then there is the state and local tax deduction, often called SALT. In the House, a small group of Republicans from New York, New Jersey and California demanded that the legislation include an increase to the $10,000 cap on the deduction. They ultimately won an agreement to set the new limit at $40,000, an expensive change that would largely benefit homeowners in areas with high taxes. While the change was necessary to win the support of blue-state Republicans in the House, senators are less committed to the policy. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the majority leader, recently remarked at the White House that 'there really isn't a single Republican senator who cares much about the SALT issue.' At the same time, House Republicans committed to more SALT relief have warned that changing the House agreement could scuttle the entire package. But some Republican senators cannot help but think that money earmarked for a higher SALT cap could have a better use. 'There's a lot of things we could do with that,' said Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Medicaid churn: How working Americans could mistakenly lose coverage under Trump tax bill
Medicaid churn: How working Americans could mistakenly lose coverage under Trump tax bill Show Caption Hide Caption President Trump gives his thoughts on Elon Musk amid clash on bill President Donald Trump responded to Elon Musk's criticism of his "big, beautiful bill" with disappointment as Musk responded on X. A centerpiece of Donald Trump's tax bill would make millions of Medicaid recipients work, volunteer or study to maintain their publicly-financed health insurance. Republicans say the work requirement is vital to protect taxpayers while motivating nondisabled Medicaid recipients to take charge of their physical and fiscal health. Dr. Mehmet Oz challenged this population to "prove that you matter." But health advocacy groups and analysts say most recipients already work in jobs that don't provide affordable health insurance or pay enough for people to afford their own insurance. They say mandating a Medicaid work requirement − combined with more frequent eligibility checks − would create an administrative nightmare that drops coverage for many who qualify for the public health insurance program for low-income and disabled residents. What is Medicaid churn? Medicaid rolls vary from month to month as people lose eligibility due to a new job, a raise or other income source that disqualifies them for coverage. A job loss or change in life circumstances could make someone newly eligible. The constant change of Medicaid rolls is what health policy experts call churn. A person who temporarily loses coverage due to a paperwork issue or mistake then must again sign up. "Churn is what happens when these eligibility systems become difficult to navigate," said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of the program on Medicaid and the uninsured for KFF, a health policy nonprofit. The federal government requires state Medicaid programs to check enrollees eligibility once a year. The Trump tax cut legislation would mandate states double eligibility checks to twice a year. And states would have the added duty of verifying a person's employment or exemption status. The legislation, which passed the House and awaits Senate approval, mandates Medicaid recipients who are "able-bodied" adults without children work 80 hours per month or qualify for an exemption such as being a student, caregiver or having a disability. The bill defines able-bodied as people who are not medically certified as physically or unfit for employment. The legislation also would strip coverage from undocumented immigrants who get Medicaid through state-funded programs. Health policy experts say more frequent eligibility checks and red tape will add administrative costs and cut off people who qualify but fall through the cracks due to administrative miscues. "People are going to have to document work status or exemption status multiple times a year, and at each point there's a risk that someone who is eligible could lose coverage," Tolbert said. Thousands lost coverage under Arkansas work requirement During the first Trump administration, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services gave states the option of implementing a work requirement for nondisabled adults on Medicaid. Arkansas' work requirement cut more than 18,000 residents from Medicaid within the first seven months of the program. People were removed often because people were unaware of paperwork requirements to keep their coverage, research shows and analysts said. In April, a study by researchers from the Urban Institute and Loyola University Chicago found the Arkansas uninsured rate jumped 7.4 percentage points among low-income adults age 30 to 49 after the state's work requirement began. The policy's impact on employment among that age group was "negative, small and statistically insignificant," the study said. Arkansas adults who didn't have access to the internet at home were disproportionately harmed by the policy, a sign adults might've had trouble accessing the state's online portal to report work histories or exemptions, the Urban Institute said. If the work requirement for Medicaid recipients is adopted nationwide, health experts say millions of working poor Americans will inevitably lose coverage. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated 10.9 million Americans would lose health insurance coverage through 2034 under the legislation. Most would lose coverage due to the Medicaid work requirement and the twice-a-year eligibility checks, but about 3.1 million would become uninsured from tweaks to Affordable Care Act enrollment, according to a KFF analysis. The ranks of the uninsured could grow larger if Congress doesn't extend the COVID-19 pandemic-era tax credits that have made ACA plans more affordable for consumers. If the tax credits expire and Congress passes the current version of the Trump tax bill, as many as 16 million Americans would lose coverage , according to CBO. "Coverage loss from work requirements should actually be very small," said Kathy Hempstead, a senior policy officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "But we anticipate it will be very large, because people will not be able to comply with the requirements and will lose their coverage." Dr. Oz: Medicaid spending is 'crippling the system' The Trump administration's top Medicaid official has defended the House legislation as a necessary step to slow spending for the federal health program that covers nearly 80 million low-income and disabled Americans. In a June 4 interview with Fox Business, Dr. Oz challenged Medicaid recipients who would face work requirements should "prove that you matter." Oz, the Trump-appointed administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said the work requirement asks "able-bodied individuals who are able to go back to work at least try to get a job or volunteer or take care of a loved one who needs help or go back into school. Do something to show you have agency over your future." In a Fox News interview posted on the social media site X, Oz said Medicaid spending has surged 50% since 2019, a pace that is "crippling the system." However, some Republicans have pushed back on the proposed cuts. In a May opinion piece in the New York Times, Sen. Josh Hawley, R- Missouri, said "slashing health insurance for the working poor" is "morally wrong and politically suicidal." Survey: Americans worried about Medicaid cuts The public is paying attention to the proposed Medicaid cuts. Slightly more than half of adults said they're worried significant cuts in Medicaid spending would negatively affect their family's ability to obtain and afford health care, according to a KFF health tracking poll released June 6. The survey this survey of 2,539 U.S. adults was conducted online and by telephone over three weeks in May. The survey said nearly 6 in 10 adults said the Trump administration's policies would weaken Medicaid, but there is a stark divide based on party affiliation. Nine in 10 Democrats but just 2 in 10 Republicans expect the administration's policies would weaken Medicaid. Republicans also were far more likely than Democrats to say that the Trump's policies would strengthen Medicaid. Still, while the survey suggests people are tracking the news, many likely wouldn't know whether their coverage has changed until they try to get medical care. "People don't often know that they've lost coverage until they try and fill a prescription or see a doctor," Tolbert said.
