Epic integration, without the multi-year IT project.

Three ways in, and we'll tell you which one you actually need.

"Epic integration" covers a wide range of work — from a lightweight SMART on FHIR app that launches inside Hyperspace, to a full HL7 interface feeding results back into the chart — and a lot of vendors quote the biggest version of that range by default because it's the safer number to sell, not because your project actually needs it. Most projects we scope need one, maybe two of these paths, not all three. We start by mapping the exact data that needs to move and which system owns it, then build against Epic's FHIR R4 APIs or classic HL7 v2 interfaces — whichever actually fits, without over-engineering a connection that a simpler build would solve just as well. That precision, worked out before a single line of code gets written, is where the real timeline and the real cost come from — not from Epic's name being on the project.

Does Epic integration really require App Orchard and a year-long timeline?

Not always, and this is the assumption that inflates most Epic project quotes before scoping even starts. Epic's App Orchard (now part of Epic's broader developer program) matters when you're building a commercial third-party app meant to run across many Epic customers — that path does carry a longer certification process. But a single-organization connection, built directly against your health system's own Epic FHIR endpoints with their IT team's sign-off, skips most of that overhead entirely. The real driver of timeline is which data needs to move and how many systems are involved, not Epic's brand name — which is exactly why we scope the actual integration path before quoting a number, instead of defaulting to the slowest, most conservative estimate.

Scope, sandbox, certify — in that order.