Quick picks
Lab reaching many referring practices: Lifepoint Informatics
Software company reading from many health systems: Redox
Hospital with its own interface team: InterSystems Health Connect, Rhapsody, or NextGen Connect
Lab replacing its LIS anyway: Orchard Software
None of the six publishes a price list. Every cost comes from a quote.
Many hospitals still struggle to exchange data. Federal survey data in an ONC review of hospital exchange shows that only 43% of hospitals were routinely interoperable in 2023.
The other hospitals managed it only some of the time, or not at all.
A lab pushing results to 300 practices, a startup reading one Epic schedule, and a health system replacing an old engine need three different products.
Quick comparison: 6 EHR integration platforms side by side
Solution | Best for | Pricing model | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
Lifepoint Informatics | Hospital outreach labs and regional labs connecting to referring practice EMRs | Quote-based, no public price list | 4.0 on G2 (1 review) |
Redox | Digital health vendors that need EHR integration across many health systems | Quote-based subscription that scales with usage | 3.9 on G2 (42 reviews) |
InterSystems HealthShare and Health Connect | Large health systems and HIEs with in-house integration teams | Negotiated license per deployment | 4.1 on G2 for Health Connect (16 reviews) |
Rhapsody (Rhapsody and Corepoint engines) | Hospitals that want a supported commercial engine | Quote based annual licensing | 4.5 on G2 (1 review) |
NextGen Connect (formerly Mirth Connect) | Teams with their own HL7 developers building each EMR interface | Commercial per-server license since version 4.6 | 5.0 on G2 (3 reviews) |
Orchard Software (Harvest LIS and Copia) | Labs replacing their LIS and wanting outreach built in | Quote based, with separate interface fees | 3.9 on Software Advice (14 reviews) |
All six support HL7 v2 and FHIR. Orchard's FHIR support needs confirming with the vendor. Ratings come from G2 or Software Advice as shown on the listing page in October 2026.
The review count matters, because a 5.0 from three reviews is not the same signal as a 3.9 from 42.
Four kinds of EMR integration solutions
Vendors use "EHR integration" for four different products. Knowing which one you are buying is most of the decision.
Interface engine: middleware where your team builds and runs each connection. InterSystems, Rhapsody, and NextGen Connect are the familiar names.
Teams that also connect non-clinical business systems can compare general middleware in our guide to MuleSoft ESB alternatives.
API first layer: a hosted service that gives you one API for many EHRs. Redox is the best-known example. General integration tools outside healthcare are ranked in our list of the best iPaaS platforms.
LIS native integration: the lab information system ships with its own EMR interfaces. You get integration as part of a much larger LIS purchase. Orchard works this way.
Lab outreach hub: the lab builds one interface from its LIS to the hub, and the hub maintains the connection to every practice EMR. Lifepoint Informatics sits here. Most engines only solve the lab side, not the doctor's office side.
The 6 EMR integration solutions
1. Lifepoint Informatics
Best for: hospital outreach labs, regional clinical labs, pathology groups, and imaging providers that need EMR integration with hundreds of referring practice EHRs without hiring an interface team.
The lab connects its LIS once to the company's hosted hub (EMRHub). The hub handles each referring practice's EMR and translates orders and results into the format that EMR expects.
Offices without an interface use a browser-based provider portal for ordering and results. The company has done this kind of lab connectivity work since 1999.
Unlimited EMR connections through a single interface
Support for over 500 EMR vendors and more than 20,000 established interfaces (company figures)
A live interface dashboard that shows each connection as green, yellow or red, plus 24/7 support
Rating: 4.0 on G2 (1 review).
Pricing: quote-based; there is no public price list.
Not good for: a health system that wants one engine for every hospital-wide feed (ADT, scheduling, billing and payer APIs). Its public review base is still thin.
2. Redox
Best for: digital health and software companies that need EHR integration with many health systems and would rather write to one API than learn each EHR.
You connect to Redox once, and it maintains the connection to each health system's EHR. It handles HL7 v2, FHIR, X12, DICOM, and vendor-specific APIs.
The health system usually still has to approve and configure its side.
Rating: 3.9 on G2 (42 reviews).
Pricing: quote-based subscription; costs rise with the number of connections and the message volume.
Not good for: a lab that needs order entry logic such as medical necessity checks, test compendium mapping, and requisition printing.
3. InterSystems HealthShare and Health Connect
Best for: large health systems, health information exchanges, and governments that have staff to run a large platform.
Health Connect is the integration engine. HealthShare adds patient indexing and shared records across organizations.
Your team builds the interfaces and manages the routing rules.
Rating: 4.1 on G2 for Health Connect (16 reviews).
Pricing: licensing is negotiated per deployment, with cost tied to cores, environments, and modules.
Not good for: a mid-sized lab or clinic without dedicated engineers. Specialized InterSystems skills are not cheap to hire.
4. Rhapsody
Best for: hospitals and health systems that want a supported commercial interface engine.
Rhapsody sells two engines: the Rhapsody Integration Engine and the Corepoint Integration Engine. Corepoint is usually described as easier to learn.
The Rhapsody engine gives deeper control. An analyst on your team builds each feed.
Rating: 4.5 on G2 (1 review).
Pricing: quote-based annual licensing per deployment; there is no public rate card.
Not good for: buyers expecting the engine to do the work. You still build, test, and maintain every interface.
5. NextGen Connect (formerly Mirth Connect)
Best for: organizations with in-house HL7 developers who want a flexible, widely known interface engine.
Most integration analysts still call it Mirth. It was free and open source for years. In 2025, NextGen moved new releases to commercial licensing, starting with version 4.6. Version 4.5.2 was the last open-source release.
Rating: 5.0 on G2 (3 reviews).
Pricing: commercial per-server annual licensing for current versions, with no published rate card.
Not good for: a team without developers. Anyone still running 4.5.2 gets no new security patches.
6. Orchard Software (Harvest LIS and Copia)
Best for: labs that are replacing their laboratory information system anyway and want outreach and EHR integration from the same vendor.
Harvest LIS runs the lab. Copia handles outreach ordering from outside clients. Referring offices order through an interface or an Orchard web portal, and the lab deals with one support line instead of two.
Rating: 3.9 on Software Advice (14 reviews).
Pricing: quote based, with licenses and interfaces priced separately; some reviewers mention interface price increases.
Not good for: a lab happy with its current LIS. The integration value comes bundled with an LIS change, which is a much bigger project than adding connectivity.
How to choose
Direction of your data: if you reach outward to many practices you do not control, pick a hub or API layer. If you move data between systems inside one hospital, pick an interface engine.
Your staff: every new connection in an engine is a small software project. If your IT team is two people and a contractor, the cost of an engine is mostly labor, not license.
To test whether a tool pays for itself in saved staff hours, try our SaaS ROI calculator.
A lab test: ask each vendor to walk one order from a practice EMR to your LIS and back. Cover ask at order entry questions, medical necessity checks, ABN forms, label printing, and the test compendium.
Small practices: ask how they are handled. A browser portal that feeds the same system often decides whether you win that business.
EMR integration FAQ
What is the best EHR integration solution for a clinical or reference lab?
For most outreach and reference labs, a lab outreach hub is the best fit, because it handles order entry logic and many practice EMRs through one LIS interface.
Labs with a strong in-house team may prefer Rhapsody or NextGen Connect.
Do I need integration middleware if my hospital already runs Epic or Oracle Health (Cerner)?
Usually yes for anything outside the hospital. Outreach labs, practices on other EMRs, devices, and outside partners still need an integration layer or engine to translate and route data.
Is FHIR replacing HL7 v2?
Not soon. Most lab orders and results still move as HL7 v2 ORM and ORU messages. FHIR is growing fastest in patient access and payer exchange, where CMS requires impacted payers to stand up FHIR-based APIs, with the Provider Access and Prior Authorization requirements due by January 1, 2027.
How long does an EMR interface take to build?
It depends far more on the other party than on the tool. A connection to an EMR the vendor has already built hundreds of times can go live in weeks.
A custom build against an unfamiliar system can take months.
Our verdict
No single solution wins every scenario. Engines from InterSystems, Rhapsody and NextGen give in-house teams control. Redox gives software companies one API. Orchard makes sense when the LIS is being replaced anyway.
For hospital outreach labs and regional labs that want EMR integration with every referring practice through one LIS connection, a live interface dashboard, support for more than 500 EMR vendors, and a browser portal for offices without an interface, Lifepoint Informatics offers its EMRHub service on a quote-based subscription.