Epic vs InSync

InSync EHR vs. Epic EHR

Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems are essential for modern healthcare providers, streamlining patient data management, billing, and clinical workflows. Two notable EHR solutions are InSync EHR and Epic, each catering to different segments of the healthcare industry. This comparison explores four key areas: service range and customization, compliance and security, ease of use and interoperability, and pricing models, helping healthcare providers determine the best fit for their practice.

Service range and customization

Both InSync EHR and Epic offer specialized features tailored to different medical disciplines, ensuring flexibility in clinical workflows. InSync provides custom patient forms, telehealth support, and a robust patient portal, while Epic includes specialty-specific modules such as EpicCare Ambulatory for outpatient care, OpTime for surgical workflows, and Beacon for oncology. Both systems allow customization to match practice needs, though Epic’s modular approach offers broader adaptability across diverse specialties.

InSync is more niche, focusing primarily on behavioral health, speech therapy, and substance abuse treatment, making it ideal for smaller practices in these fields. In contrast, Epic’s extensive module library caters to large hospital systems and multi-specialty groups, supporting everything from radiology to transplant care. Additionally, Epic provides native mobile apps such as Haiku and Canto, while InSync lacks mobile accessibility. This is a significant drawback for clinicians needing on-the-go chart access.

Compliance and security

Both platforms prioritize HIPAA compliance, ensuring patient data protection as required by U.S. law. InSync and Epic also adhere to HITECH Act standards for financial transactions and SOC 2 Type II for security controls. Epic goes further by maintaining ISO 27001 certification, reflecting its enterprise-grade security measures, while InSync does not publicly confirm this certification.

A key difference lies in Epic’s widespread adoption by large hospitals, which demands higher security scrutiny and frequent audits. Epic also supports bi-directional interoperability via Carequality and CommonWell, ensuring seamless data exchange across different EHRs. While secure, InSync lacks the same level of endorsements for interoperability, potentially limiting its use in large, multi-system healthcare networks.

Ease of use and interoperability

Both EHRs offer cloud-based deployment, eliminating the need for on-premise servers. InSync provides remote and on-site training, easing implementation for smaller practices. Similarly, Epic offers role-specific training programs, including virtual SmartUser classes and self-paced courses, though its complexity may require longer onboarding for large teams.

Where they differ is in user experience and interoperability. InSync’s interface is specialized for behavioral health, reducing clutter for its target users. However, it lacks native mobile apps, forcing clinicians to rely on web browsers. Epic, while more complex, excels in cross-departmental data sharing, enabling seamless communication between specialties. Its open API facilitates third-party integrations, whereas InSync’s integrations are less transparent.

Pricing and contract policies

Neither EHR publicly discloses pricing, requiring custom quotes. InSync appears geared toward affordable monthly subscriptions for small to mid-sized behavioral health practices.

Epic offers flexible deployment models: full enterprise systems for large hospitals, Community Connect for smaller practices sharing a hospital's system, and scaled-down SaaS options. Costs vary significantly - from $1,200 for basic self-hosted setups to $500,000+ for large implementations. Monthly fees range $200-$35,000, with additional training ($2,000 average) and per-user licensing fees (up to $7,000 for physicians). This makes Epic better suited for large health systems with bigger budgets.

In contrast, InSync’s pricing remains undisclosed but likely follows a simpler monthly subscription model without complex tiered licensing. Neither system offers a free trial, but InSync may be more budget-friendly for specialized practices with limited scaling needs.

Conclusion

Choosing between InSync EHR and Epic depends on practice size, specialty, and budget. InSync is ideal for behavioral health and rehab clinics, offering tailored features but lacking mobile access and pricing transparency. Epic dominates the hospital and multi-specialty space, with superior interoperability, AI integration, and security, but at a higher cost and steeper learning curve.

For small to mid-sized behavioral health practices, InSync provides a focused, cost-effective solution. For large healthcare systems needing scalability and advanced integrations, Epic remains the industry leader. Ultimately, providers should assess their workflow needs, budget, and long-term growth plans before deciding.