Why We Built SyncMesh: A Better Way to Handle Healthcare Integrations
If you’ve worked in healthcare IT for any length of time, you know the integration problem well. We’ve all been there – juggling legacy systems, dealing with finicky interface engines, and watching our integration infrastructure creak under the weight of growing data volumes.
For years, tools like Mirth Connect, Rhapsody, and Redox have been the go-to solutions. And honestly, they’ve done their job. But here’s the thing: they were built for a different era. An era of on-premise servers, heavy scripting, and systems that needed to run 24/7 whether they were processing data or not.
At TechVariable, we kept running into the same frustrations with these platforms. So we built SyncMesh to address them. Here’s what makes it different.
No More Babysitting Servers
With traditional tools, you’re constantly managing infrastructure. Provisioning new servers, planning capacity, applying patches, worrying about version upgrades—it never ends. Redox, Mirth, and Rhapsody all need this always-on infrastructure, which means you’re paying for it and maintaining it around the clock.
SyncMesh takes a serverless approach. There are no servers to manage, no nodes to configure, no clusters to maintain. Everything scales automatically based on what you’re actually processing. When you get hit with a massive batch of EHR updates or a flood of device data, the system just handles it. When things are quiet, you’re not paying for idle resources.
Every Message Matters
One thing that’s always bothered us about channel-based processing is how it handles failures. When something breaks, you often have to replay entire batches or dig through convoluted logs to figure out which specific message caused the problem.
SyncMesh treats every message as its own independent unit. Each one has isolated state, its own retry logic, and clear lineage tracking. When something goes wrong, you know exactly which message failed and why. It’s a much cleaner way to work, and it makes your integrations far more reliable.
Schema Validation That Actually Prevents Problems
We’ve seen too many integration issues that could have been caught earlier if there was proper validation in place. Many interface engines let you be flexible with your transformations, which sounds great until you realize it’s allowed silent data corruption or mapping drift to slip through.
SyncMesh enforces schemas and type safety from the start. Whether you’re working with HL7 v2, FHIR, X12, or custom formats, everything gets validated at design time and runtime. It might feel a bit strict at first, but trust us – it catches problems before they make it to production. As standards evolve, this schema-driven approach gives you confidence that your integrations won’t break unexpectedly.
Less Scripting, More Clarity
If you’ve spent time in Mirth Connect or Rhapsody, you’ve probably written your fair share of JavaScript transformations. And you’ve probably inherited someone else’s cryptic scripts that you had to decipher. Script-heavy systems create knowledge silos and make it hard to onboard new team members.
SyncMesh uses declarative, schema-driven mappings instead. You define what you want to happen through structured configuration rather than writing code. It’s easier to understand, easier to maintain, and way easier to hand off to someone else on your team.
Built for Modern Development Teams
Legacy interface engines tend to be GUI-driven and somewhat vendor-locked. Making complex changes often requires specialized knowledge, and you end up depending heavily on specific developers who know the system inside and out.
We designed SyncMesh with modern development practices in mind. It integrates with CI/CD pipelines, supports modular development, and lets teams work independently. You can build, test, and deploy integrations without stepping on each other’s toes.
Pay for What You Use
Here’s a simple one: why should you pay for infrastructure that’s sitting idle? With always-on systems, you’re burning money during off-peak hours just to keep the lights on.
SyncMesh uses a pay-per-utilization model. You only pay for the messages you actually process. It’s straightforward, and it makes a real difference in your budget, especially if you have variable workloads.
Microservices, Not Monoliths
Older integration platforms tend to be monolithic—change one thing, and you risk affecting everything else. SyncMesh uses a microservices-based architecture, so you can deploy, version, and update individual components without worrying about breaking your entire environment.
Observability Without the Headache
Monitoring and debugging integrations shouldn’t require a PhD. SyncMesh has built-in observability – logs, traces, and metrics flow into your existing monitoring tools without heavy configuration. You can use the UI when you need it, or run everything through automated pipelines if that’s more your style.
The Botton Line
Look, we’re not saying the older tools are bad. They’ve served the industry well. But healthcare data is growing, interoperability requirements are getting more complex, and teams need infrastructure that can keep up without constant hand-holding.
SyncMesh isn’t just another interface engine. It’s what we believe healthcare integration should look like in 2025 and beyond—scalable, maintainable, cost-efficient, and built for engineering teams that want to move fast without breaking things.
If you’re tired of fighting your integration infrastructure, maybe it’s time to try a different approach.
| Feature | SyncMesh | Mirth Connect | Redox/Rhapsody |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cloud-native & Serverless | Fully serverless, stateless, auto-scaling | Stateful, always-on | Stateful, always-on |
| Incremental Message Processing | Native support for message-by-message processing | Channel-based (indirect support) | Limited support |
| Schema Validation & Type Safety | Strongly enforced schema and static typing | Limited, custom scripting | Minimal |
| Transformation Model | Schema-driven, declarative mapping | Script-based or GUI-driven | Script-based (JavaScript) |
| Developer Workflow | Fast, self-service, low vendor dependence | Medium - GUI-driven | Slower, vendor-led |
| Cost Model | Pay-per-utilization; no idle infra | Requires provisioning; always-on | Requires provisioning; always-on |
| Architecture | Microservices; composable & modular | Monolithic | Monolithic |
| UI & Observability | Optional UI; deployable without it | Required | Required |
