[{"innerBlocks":[],"name":"core\/freeform","postId":699,"blockType":{"name":"core\/freeform","keywords":[],"attributes":{"content":{"type":"string","source":"raw"},"lock":{"type":"object"}},"providesContext":[],"usesContext":[],"selectors":[],"supports":{"className":false,"customClassName":false,"reusable":false},"styles":[],"variations":[],"apiVersion":3,"title":"Classic","description":"Use the classic WordPress editor.","category":"text"},"originalContent":"Surescripts is contending that a Federal Trade Commission complaint filed earlier this year in federal court should be dismissed because of a combination of factual and merit-based errors.

While the FTC alleges that Surescripts has engaged in a \u201clong-running anticompetitive scheme\u201d to maintain its e-prescribing monopolies, the company\u2019s motion to dismiss filed on Friday claims that two of the foundational facts the agency uses to support its case are \u201cdemonstrably false\u201d and have resulted in an inaccurate description of its business practices.

Specifically, the FTC alleges that \u201cdecade-long monopolies\u201d in the e-prescribing routing and eligibility markets have produced higher prices, reduced quality, stifled innovation, suppressed output, as well as stymied alternative business models.

Also See<\/b>: FTC sues Surescripts, charging anticompetitive actions in e-prescribing<\/a>

\u201cWe continue to be disappointed at the allegations made by the Federal Trade Commission,\u201d said Surescripts CEO Tom Skelton in a written statement. \u201cWe wholeheartedly share the FTC\u2019s focus on lowering healthcare costs, and we have achieved significant reductions with e-prescribing for many years. However, the FTC\u2019s complaint makes significant factual errors about Surescripts\u2019 business and mischaracterizes the economic realities of the e-prescribing market. As such, our counsel has filed a motion to dismiss based on the facts and merits of the case.\u201d

According to Surescripts, one of the FTC\u2019s factual errors in its case cites the company\u2019s contracts with electronic health records vendor Epic as a key example of a loyalty provision that would require them to maintain exclusivity to Surescripts for the term of the contract.

However, Surescripts insists that its contract with Epic \u201cdoes not and has never had an exclusivity requirement,\u201d nor do any contracts with the EHR vendor\u2019s customers contain express exclusivity requirements.

In addition, Surescripts objects to the FTC\u2019s description of its contracts as including a penalty provision that the agency says would discourage EHRs from using multiple networks or switching away from Surescripts by requiring EHRs to repay loyalty incentives that they previously earned.

\u201cThere is no such requirement for any EHR to pay back any incentive payment earned following a notice of termination, and EHRs may freely terminate with just six months\u2019 notice,\u201d contends Surescripts.

Another point of contention for the company is what it describes as a misrepresentation by the FTC of the \u201ceconomic reality of the e-prescribing market when it makes a theoretical claim that prices could have fallen by more than the 70 percent that Surescripts achieved.\u201d

On the point, Skelton notes that \u201cwhile the cost of American healthcare overall continues to rise, Surescripts has reduced the cost of e-prescribing by 70 percent since 2009, a goal we will continue to focus on as a critical part of our business.\u201d","saveContent":"Surescripts is contending that a Federal Trade Commission complaint filed earlier this year in federal court should be dismissed because of a combination of factual and merit-based errors.

While the FTC alleges that Surescripts has engaged in a \u201clong-running anticompetitive scheme\u201d to maintain its e-prescribing monopolies, the company\u2019s motion to dismiss filed on Friday claims that two of the foundational facts the agency uses to support its case are \u201cdemonstrably false\u201d and have resulted in an inaccurate description of its business practices.

Specifically, the FTC alleges that \u201cdecade-long monopolies\u201d in the e-prescribing routing and eligibility markets have produced higher prices, reduced quality, stifled innovation, suppressed output, as well as stymied alternative business models.

Also See<\/b>: FTC sues Surescripts, charging anticompetitive actions in e-prescribing<\/a>

\u201cWe continue to be disappointed at the allegations made by the Federal Trade Commission,\u201d said Surescripts CEO Tom Skelton in a written statement. \u201cWe wholeheartedly share the FTC\u2019s focus on lowering healthcare costs, and we have achieved significant reductions with e-prescribing for many years. However, the FTC\u2019s complaint makes significant factual errors about Surescripts\u2019 business and mischaracterizes the economic realities of the e-prescribing market. As such, our counsel has filed a motion to dismiss based on the facts and merits of the case.\u201d

According to Surescripts, one of the FTC\u2019s factual errors in its case cites the company\u2019s contracts with electronic health records vendor Epic as a key example of a loyalty provision that would require them to maintain exclusivity to Surescripts for the term of the contract.

However, Surescripts insists that its contract with Epic \u201cdoes not and has never had an exclusivity requirement,\u201d nor do any contracts with the EHR vendor\u2019s customers contain express exclusivity requirements.

In addition, Surescripts objects to the FTC\u2019s description of its contracts as including a penalty provision that the agency says would discourage EHRs from using multiple networks or switching away from Surescripts by requiring EHRs to repay loyalty incentives that they previously earned.

\u201cThere is no such requirement for any EHR to pay back any incentive payment earned following a notice of termination, and EHRs may freely terminate with just six months\u2019 notice,\u201d contends Surescripts.

Another point of contention for the company is what it describes as a misrepresentation by the FTC of the \u201ceconomic reality of the e-prescribing market when it makes a theoretical claim that prices could have fallen by more than the 70 percent that Surescripts achieved.\u201d

On the point, Skelton notes that \u201cwhile the cost of American healthcare overall continues to rise, Surescripts has reduced the cost of e-prescribing by 70 percent since 2009, a goal we will continue to focus on as a critical part of our business.\u201d","order":0,"get_parent":{},"attributes":[],"attributesType":{"content":{"type":"string","source":"raw"},"lock":{"type":"object"}},"dynamicContent":""}]

Surescripts files motion to dismiss FTC e-prescribing claim

More for you