clinicians.build · interactive · august 15, 2026

Zero

Every hospital in the CMS Promoting Interoperability program has to name the certified health IT products it used. 1,487 hospitals on Epic named nothing but Epic. Here is all 4,046 of them, at once.

Primary source: Casey Ross & Bob Herman, “FTC reviewing Epic Systems’ use of NDAs, possible anticompetitive practices”
STAT News · published August 14, 2026
Grounding data: MIMI Labs · CMS/ONC Promoting Interoperability Hospital Public Information file, program year 2023

Federal investigators have two questions about Epic, according to STAT. Whether the non-competes keep employees from leaving. And whether Epic’s leverage over hospitals keeps competitors from reaching patient data.

The second question has a public file attached to it. Nobody built it to answer this — it exists so CMS can verify that a hospital used certified technology — but it happens to record, for 4,046 hospitals, exactly which software vendors were named on the same form.

Press play. Each square is one hospital that filed a Promoting Interoperability attestation for program year 2023.
Named zero third-party certified developers Named at least one
Hospitals in the file
4,046
Epic sites naming zero
1,487 / 81%
Everyone else naming zero
552 / 25%
Mean third-party devs
0.23 vs 1.58

Nearly seven to one

An Epic hospital reports an average of 0.23 non-base certified developers. Everyone else reports 1.58. Whatever is producing that gap, it is not subtle and it is not noise — there are 4,046 hospitals in the file and 89 developers.

The first thing anyone says is that Epic hospitals are big academic systems that build in-house. You can check that.

Joining the file to CMS’s Hospital General Information data splits every hospital into acute care or critical access. If size were the story, the gap should shrink inside each stratum. It does not move.

Who gets named alongside Epic

The fourteen most-reported non-base developers in the file, as a share of the hospitals that could have named them.

At Epic (n=1,836)All others (n=2,210)
Commure — the $7B automation company that terminated its customer referral payments on Aug. 6, six days before STAT’s investigation ran — is named by 149 hospitals in this file. Zero of them are on Epic. Clinisys runs the other way: 4.7% of Epic hospitals, 1.0% of everyone else. Whatever this gap is, it is not a wall.

Where this file is thin

Read this before you quote a number off the graphic

Self-reported, unaudited, one program year. Hospitals fill in their own certified-product list for program year 2023. Nothing checks it. A hospital naming one product instead of four could be a procurement fact or reporting fatigue, and the file cannot tell you which.

The denominator is a program, not a country. Only hospitals participating in Promoting Interoperability appear. Facilities outside Medicare and Medicaid, and hospitals using certified technology without attesting, are simply absent. Roughly 550 of the 4,593 facilities in the raw file named no developer at all and are excluded from every figure here.

“Base EHR” is our line, not CMS’s. We treat Epic, Cerner, MEDITECH, TruBridge, Altera, MEDHOST and HCA’s internal IT group as base EHRs and everything else as third-party. A hospital naming Epic is classified Epic regardless of what else it names. Move that line and the absolute levels move; the direction does not.

Nothing here establishes wrongdoing. Epic’s position is that it is a leader in interoperability and does not engage in anticompetitive behavior. No charges have been filed against anyone.

The number that actually decides it

The countable thing is 0.23 versus 1.58. The thing an FTC inquiry can compel and a public file cannot produce is the other one: what a third party has to agree to in order to read a chart. API terms. App-review timelines. The contract language between Epic and a hospital about running a competing tool. The CureIS complaint alleges an “Epic-first” policy requiring customers to drop third-party tools even where Epic has no equivalent product. Epic has moved to dismiss.

Every clinical AI company in the country built on the assumption that this question would not get asked out loud. It just did. The dot field is not the answer — it is the shape of the thing being asked about.

Read the STAT investigation → The state-by-state explorer →