What to Expect in Interoperability in 2025
This is part of our weekly executive insights series where Elion CEO Bobby Guelich speaks with healthcare leaders about their tech priorities and learnings. For more, become a member and sign up for our email here.
Role: Interoperability Practice Lead
Organization: HTD Health
What are you watching on the healthcare data and interoperability front heading into 2025?
There are two major areas: 1) healthcare technology lawsuits and their potential implications, and 2) the impact of the Trump administration on health tech regulation. These two topics will influence much of what happens with healthcare technology over the coming months.
Let’s start with the lawsuits. What are the key ones to be aware of?
Three major lawsuits could have significant implications for health technology and healthcare executives:
Epic vs. Particle Health: Particle Health is suing Epic, claiming Epic has a monopoly in the provider market and used its dominance to behave anti-competitively in the payer platform market. Most recently, Particle has responded to Epic’s motion to dismiss, arguing that many of Epic’s claims are fact-intensive and should be addressed in discovery. The court’s decision on whether the case moves forward will be critical. If it proceeds and Particle ultimately prevails, potential remedies could include mandated structural changes at Epic, particularly impacting clinical data exchange between payers and providers.
Real Time Medical Systems vs. PointClickCare: Real Time Medical Systems has accused PointClickCare of violating federal information-blocking regulations. A district court previously ruled in favor of Real Time Medical on a preliminary basis, granting an injunction requiring data access. The appeals process is now underway. If the ruling stands, it could significantly broaden the interpretation of information-blocking regulations, granting third-party applications greater access to electronic health data regardless of EHR vendor preferences. This could level the playing field for app developers competing with EHR-native solutions.
Intus Care vs. RTZ: Similar to the Real Time Medical case, Intus Care is suing RTZ, a PACE-focused EHR vendor, over information blocking. This case is unique because RTZ is not a certified EHR vendor, potentially broadening the scope of the actors covered by these regulations.
The Real Time Medical Systems case seems particularly impactful, especially with how AI and robotic process automation (RPA) are evolving.
Absolutely. If upheld, it could radically reshape how data access and interoperability are handled. It would force certified health IT vendors to either permit screen scraping or provide APIs to access that data, dramatically widening opportunities for third-party applications.
What about the Trump administration? What should we expect there?
A lot hinges on who is appointed as the new head of the ASTP, formerly the ONC, and the direction they take from a regulatory perspective.
For instance, the HTI-2 regulations, which outline new standards for certified EHRs, are largely still pending. The new administration could push them forward, shelve them, or modify them. Similarly, TEFCA could be slowed, stopped, or redirected. TEFCA is already contentious, so changes in leadership could bring shifts in its trajectory; a complete end to TEFCA is unlikely, but it could move very slowly depending on who is in charge of the ASTP.
With the Chevron ruling limiting agency powers, is there concern about broader challenges to agencies like ONC?
While some are concerned about drastic changes, like eliminating ASTP or the EHR certification program, that’s unlikely. Initiatives like CMMI (the CMS Innovation Center) could face scrutiny due to mixed results. By and large, though, the health tech regulatory structure should remain intact as the focus of DOGE and other government reform groups seems to be on other priorities.