delivered for clients · names withheldimplementation Industry platforms

Epic integrations, FHIR APIs and TEFCA connectivity

Cohash builds and governs the integration layer around Epic for health systems. We catalog HL7 v2 interfaces, build FHIR R4 and SMART on FHIR integrations through Epic's developer program, review OAuth scopes for every third-party app, and support TEFCA exchange through your QHIN. We work alongside Epic and your analysts, with identity, interface monitoring and EHR data feeds to analytics in the same plan.

  1. 01Interface and app inventory
  2. 02App intake and scope review
  3. 03Build and test FHIR integrations
  4. 04TEFCA and payer API exchange
  5. 05Monitor and hand over
case-study / epic-integrations-and-fhir delivered
beforePoint-to-point HL7 feeds and ad hoc app access afterGoverned Epic FHIR APIs and TEFCA exchange
01 · APPS AND PAYERS 02 · ACCESS AND INTAKE 03 · EPIC AND EXCHANGE 04 · OPERATIONS AND DATA SMART on FHIR apps: registered clients SMART on FHIR apps registered clients Payer FHIR APIs: Provider Access · Prior Auth Payer FHIR APIs Provider Access ·Prior Auth App intake and scope review: security and privacy checklist App intake and scopereview security and privacychecklist Interface and app catalog: owner · scopes · failure procedure Interface and appcatalog owner · scopes ·failure procedure Epic FHIR R4 APIs: via Epic's developer program Epic Epic FHIR R4 APIs via Epic's developerprogram QHIN for TEFCA: confirmed exchange purposes QHIN for TEFCA confirmed exchangepurposes HL7 v2 interfaces: monitored queues HL7 v2 interfaces monitored queues Interface monitoring: queue depth · error alerts Interface monitoring queue depth · erroralerts Analytics: EHR data feeds Analytics EHR data feeds
case file

The story

Told without the client's name or anything that could identify them.

what happened

A health system's integration team had HL7 v2 interfaces that backed up overnight, third-party apps connected to Epic by individual departments, and no register of the scopes those apps held. Payers were preparing CMS-0057-F prior authorization APIs, and nobody owned the TEFCA exchange purposes the organization had signed up for. We started with a catalog of every feed, FHIR client, SMART app and HIE connection, with an owner and failure procedure for each. From there we set up one app intake path with scope review, built new FHIR R4 integrations against Epic's sandbox, and added queue and error alerts that reach on-call staff.

why it was urgent

The first TEFCA QHINs were designated in December 2023, and Epic Nexus is on the RCE's list. Under CMS-0057-F, impacted payers generally have to offer Provider Access and Prior Authorization APIs from 1 January 2027, which gives providers new FHIR endpoints to call. In the meantime, app and AI vendors keep asking for FHIR access.

problem statement
  • openDepartments connect third-party apps to Epic and nobody keeps a register of granted scopes.
  • recurringHL7 interfaces back up overnight and clinicians notice missing results before IT does.
  • blockedNobody owns the TEFCA exchange purposes your organization has signed up for.
  • openAnalytics teams wait for EHR extracts that one analyst builds by hand.
  • recurringPayers are about to offer prior authorization APIs and nobody has planned the Epic side.
architecture

The estate, before and after

before
before

Before: point-to-point HL7 feeds and unreviewed app access

Departments connected third-party apps to Epic with scopes nobody tracked, and HL7 v2 interfaces backed up without alerts. Analytics waited on extracts built by hand, and HIE exchange had no clear owner.

Before: point-to-point HL7 feeds and unreviewed app access Departments connected third-party apps to Epic with scopes nobody tracked, and HL7 v2 interfaces backed up without alerts. Analytics waited on extracts built by hand, and HIE exchange had no clear owner. 01 · DEPARTMENTS AND VENDORS 02 · EHR 03 · INTERFACES 04 · DOWNSTREAM untracked scopes ADT · orders · results HL7 messages ad hoc extract files exchange Third-party apps connected by departments Epic Epic clinical record HL7 v2 interfaces back up overnight, noalerts Manual extracts built by one analyst Lab and ancillarysystems results · orders Analytics waits on extracts HIE connections exchange purposes unowned
Read the diagram as text
  1. Third-party apps → Epic: untracked scopes
  2. Epic → HL7 v2 interfaces: ADT · orders · results
  3. HL7 v2 interfaces → Lab and ancillary systems: HL7 messages
  4. Epic → Manual extracts: ad hoc extract
  5. Manual extracts → Analytics: files
  6. Epic → HIE connections: exchange
after
after

After: governed Epic FHIR APIs, TEFCA and monitored interfaces

Apps reach Epic's FHIR R4 APIs only through one intake path with scope review. TEFCA exchange runs through the QHIN with confirmed purposes, payer FHIR APIs are planned into clinical and revenue cycle work, and interfaces send queue and error alerts to on-call staff.

After: governed Epic FHIR APIs, TEFCA and monitored interfaces Apps reach Epic's FHIR R4 APIs only through one intake path with scope review. TEFCA exchange runs through the QHIN with confirmed purposes, payer FHIR APIs are planned into clinical and revenue cycle work, and interfaces send queue and error alerts to on-call staff. 01 · APPS AND PAYERS 02 · ACCESS AND INTAKE 03 · EPIC AND EXCHANGE 04 · OPERATIONS AND DATA registration request approved scopes register client payer data to clinicians TEFCA exchange queue metrics EHR data feeds SMART on FHIR apps registered clients Payer FHIR APIs Provider Access · PriorAuth App intake and scopereview security and privacychecklist Interface and appcatalog owner · scopes · failureprocedure Epic Epic FHIR R4 APIs via Epic's developerprogram QHIN for TEFCA confirmed exchangepurposes HL7 v2 interfaces monitored queues Interface monitoring queue depth · error alerts Analytics EHR data feeds
Read the diagram as text
  1. SMART on FHIR apps → App intake and scope review: registration request
  2. App intake and scope review → Epic FHIR R4 APIs: approved scopes
  3. App intake and scope review → Interface and app catalog: register client
  4. Payer FHIR APIs → Epic FHIR R4 APIs: payer data to clinicians
  5. QHIN for TEFCA → Epic FHIR R4 APIs: TEFCA exchange
  6. HL7 v2 interfaces → Interface monitoring: queue metrics
  7. Epic FHIR R4 APIs → Analytics: EHR data feeds
results

What the client got

What changed for the client once the work was done. Described, not scored: we don't publish client figures.

  1. result 01

    Every interface and app has an owner

    We catalogued every HL7 v2 feed, FHIR client, SMART on FHIR app, file extract and HIE connection, each with an owner, message types, scopes and a failure procedure.

  2. result 02

    Third-party apps get scopes through one intake

    New apps now pass security and privacy review against a scope checklist for their type. We also revoked the scopes existing apps had but never used.

  3. result 03

    Interface failures reach IT before clinicians notice

    On-call staff get the queue depth and error alerts. Any failure that recurs has a runbook.

  4. result 04

    TEFCA and payer APIs have a plan and an owner

    We confirmed which exchange purposes go through the QHIN and planned how payers' Provider Access and Prior Authorization APIs reach clinicians and revenue cycle staff.

  5. result 05

    New FHIR integrations follow a tested path

    We built new integrations in Epic's sandbox against FHIR R4 resources. Real message samples and clinical users tested them, and only then did they go through production registration.

what can go wrong

Risks we plan for

  1. Over-broad FHIR scopes

    Apps approved with more scopes than they need expose patient data that was never in scope for their use case. We review every scope against the app's job.

  2. PHI in test environments

    Copying production data into development is a familiar HIPAA problem. We default to de-identified or synthetic data, and every exception has a person's name on it.

  3. Interfaces with no owner

    Feeds built by departed analysts fail quietly. Each interface needs a named owner, an alert threshold and a runbook.

  4. Splitting work badly with the vendor

    If Cohash and Epic services overlap, you pay twice and support doesn't know who to call. So the split between Epic, your analysts and us is written down on day one.

ai in this move

Where AI helps, and where it needs guardrails

Epic's own AI covers clinicians (Art), patients (Emmie) and revenue cycle (Penny), and Epic describes Agent Factory for building and monitoring agents. Outside AI tools usually arrive as FHIR clients or MCP servers wrapping FHIR. We treat each one like any app: its own client registration, minimum scopes, patient-context limits and audit logs, reviewed by security and privacy before go-live.

forward deployed engineers →
you keep

What you're left with

We write these for your setup, and they're working documents. Your team should be able to keep things running from them long after we've gone.

  • inventory01

    Interface and app catalog with owner, scopes and failure procedure

    yours to keep
  • document02

    FHIR app intake process with a scope checklist per app type

    yours to keep
  • design03

    FHIR and SMART on FHIR integration designs with registration steps

    yours to keep
  • code04

    TEFCA exchange purpose and payer API readiness review

    yours to keep
  • runbook05

    Interface monitoring alerts and runbooks

    yours to keep
talent and delivery · governed epic fhir apis and tefca exchange

Certified engineers, wherever you need them.

Some clients want a project team, some want a couple of engineers on theirs. Either works. Onsite, nearshore or offshore, with handovers across time zones that keep things moving.

Onsite

Engineers at your sites in the US

Nearshore

Overlapping hours with US teams

Offshore

Overnight progress on your backlog

All time zones

Coverage handed over across time zones

24-hour coverage · US Central time
OnsiteUS business hours
Nearshoreoverlapping US hours
Offshoreovernight progress
Combinedhandover, not hand-off
01Do you implement Epic?

No. Epic and your own analysts lead the implementation. We work on what surrounds it: integrations, FHIR apps, data feeds, identity and support. We can also place analysts and integration staff.

02Which FHIR version should new integrations target?

Epic on FHIR lists R4, STU3 and DSTU2, and new work normally targets R4. Support for individual resources and scopes varies, so we check every resource your app needs against Epic's documentation before building.

03Do we need to do anything for TEFCA if Epic is our QHIN connection?

Usually, yes. You still decide which exchange purposes to support, how requests get answered, and how consent and patient matching work. We go through those settings and the workflows behind them with your team.

04How do we let AI tools use Epic data safely?

Register them like any other FHIR client, with the narrowest scopes that work, patient-context limits and audit logging. Security and privacy review each one before production.

sources 6 sources linked last checked 2026-10-20 content fingerprint 0376fd21
  1. 01ASTP/ONC: Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement (TEFCA)healthit.gov ↗
  2. 02The Sequoia Project (RCE): Designated QHINsrce.sequoiaproject.org ↗
  3. 03Epic on FHIR: developer resource (R4, STU3, DSTU2)fhir.epic.com ↗
  4. 04Epic on FHIR: OAuth 2.0 and SMART on FHIR launchfhir.epic.com ↗
  5. 05CMS: Interoperability and Prior Authorization Final Rule (CMS-0057-F) fact sheetcms.gov ↗
  6. 06Epic: Real results, right now, how Epic AI is reducing costs (10 Mar 2026)epic.com ↗
Reviewed by the Cohash team Product names are trademarks of their owners. how we handle facts and data →
next step

Planning this move?

A 30-minute working session with a senior engineer. No slides.

useful to bring
  • The platform and the version you're on
  • Where you need to get to, and by when
  • What's custom: rules, plugins, integrations
  • Any audit finding or deadline driving it