HL7 vs. FHIR: Telehealth Data Exchange

Choosing the right data exchange standard is crucial for telehealth success. HL7 v2 and FHIR are two key standards for healthcare data sharing, but they serve different needs. Here's a quick breakdown:

• HL7 v2: A message-based standard used by 95% of U.S. healthcare organizations. It's reliable but requires custom coding and has limited support for modern telehealth needs.
• FHIR: A modern, RESTful API-based standard designed for real-time data sharing, mobile apps, and cloud environments. Easier to implement and ideal for telehealth.

Quick Comparison

Feature	HL7 v2	FHIR
Architecture	Message-based	Resource-based REST APIs
Data Format	ASCII text	JSON, XML, RDF
Implementation	Complex, custom coding	Minimal customization
Real-time Support	Limited	Built-in with REST
Mobile Integration	Limited	Strong support
Learning Curve	Steep	Easier to adopt

Bottom Line: If you're modernizing telehealth systems or integrating mobile apps, FHIR is the better choice. For legacy systems, HL7 v2 remains widely used but less flexible.

HL7 vs FHIR: Main Differences

HL7 v2 Structure and Features

HL7 v2 relies on a message-based architecture that has been a cornerstone of healthcare data exchange for years. It uses ASCII text-based messages, organized into segments. However, integrating HL7 v2 often demands custom coding and interface engines to achieve full functionality.

One of its challenges is the absence of a clear message model and semantic framework . This means healthcare organizations frequently need to allocate extra resources for custom development. Additionally, its document-focused design limits how easily data can be shared or reused. These drawbacks highlight the demand for a more modern solution, like FHIR.

FHIR Structure and Features

FHIR takes a more modern approach to healthcare data exchange. It uses RESTful web services and current web technologies to simplify processes. Its resource-based architecture organizes data elements into "resources", each with a unique identifier, making it easier to access and manage .

FHIR also works with SMART to enable secure connections with third-party EMR systems. With its REST-based framework, FHIR supports real-time data exchange, making it ideal for dynamic environments like telehealth.

Comparison Chart: HL7 vs FHIR

Feature	HL7 v2	FHIR
Architecture	Message-based	Resource-based RESTful APIs
Data Format	ASCII text	JSON, XML, RDF
Implementation	Requires custom coding	Minimal customization
Real-time Support	Limited	Built-in with REST
Mobile Integration	Limited	Native support
Learning Curve	Steep	Easier to adopt
Security	Basic	SMART authentication
Communication	Not specified	RESTful

FHIR's design offers clear benefits for real-time and mobile-friendly applications, making it a strong choice for telehealth. While HL7 v2 continues to play a key role in existing systems, FHIR's use of modern web technologies makes it an appealing option for new projects.

HL7 vs FHIR Explained: Key Differences in Healthcare Data Standards

sbb-itb-2812cee

Implementation Examples

Let’s dive into some real-world examples to see how these standards are being applied effectively in healthcare.

HL7 v2 in Practice

HL7 v2 has become a cornerstone of healthcare data exchange. However, its widespread use comes with challenges - different versions (ranging from v2.3 to v2.9) and custom implementations can complicate mapping and increase costs.

Custom mappings tailored to specific HL7 v2 segments often lead to higher expenses . To overcome these hurdles, successful implementations rely on interface engines, standardized formats, skilled personnel, and strong security measures .

FHIR Applications Today

FHIR is powering modern telehealth solutions in exciting ways. For example:

• A non-emergency medical transportation company leveraged FHIR to automate claim submissions, provide real-time data access, scale operations efficiently, and maintain HIPAA compliance using TLS 1.2 .
• A healthcare referral platform integrated multiple EHR systems using SMART on FHIR, simplifying e-referrals while staying compliant with the 21st Century Cures Act and HIPAA .

Another example highlights FHIR's potential in a speech-processing patient monitoring application. Key features of this implementation included:

Implementation Feature	Outcome
Multi-tenant Architecture	Improved security and data isolation
SSO Integration	Simplified user authentication
FHIR Compliance	Better interoperability
Market-ready Solutions	Enabled entry into the US market

SMART on FHIR has also emerged as a pivotal tool, enabling developers to build applications that seamlessly work across different EHR systems - eliminating the need for custom integrations . These examples showcase how FHIR is reshaping telehealth by improving efficiency, compliance, and interoperability.

Selecting a Standard for Your Needs

Decision Criteria

When choosing between HL7 v2 and FHIR, consider the following factors:

Decision Factor	HL7 v2	FHIR
Implementation Complexity	Requires specialized knowledge and complex structures	Built on widely-used web technologies like REST and JSON
System Integration	Point-to-point connections	Supports one-to-many interfaces
Cloud Compatibility	Limited support	Well-suited for cloud-based environments
Mobile/Wearable Support	Minimal capabilities	Strong native support for mobile and wearable devices
Development Resources	Needs expertise in HL7 standards	Standard web development skills are sufficient

FHIR's reliance on RESTful web services and modern web technologies makes it a natural fit for telehealth applications. Unlike HL7's point-to-point setup, FHIR allows for one-to-many data exchanges, streamlining integration across systems .

For organizations already using HL7, Drew Ivan, Chief Strategy Officer at Rhapsody, provides a thoughtful perspective:

"As FHIR starts to take off, it's not going to displace the existing standards. There are a lot of existing interfaces built on standards like HL7 version 2, CCD, and DICOM. The volume of migrating them to FHIR is too big of an effort to contemplate when it's already working fine. Plus, these [older] standards were built to solve a specific problem, and even though there's a new standard coming out - FHIR - that doesn't mean that the problems those old standards have solved have gone away."

Healthcare Data Exchange: Next Steps

Understanding these factors helps in planning for the future of telehealth data exchange, which is increasingly leaning toward FHIR's capabilities. While HL7 has proven its reliability with examples like the Iguana 5 interface engine processing over 42 million messages in a single day , FHIR's design addresses the demands of modern healthcare systems.

Key benefits of FHIR include:

• Scalability: The FHIR at Scale Taskforce (FAST) is actively working to address scaling challenges .
• Security: FHIR includes strong security and privacy measures to meet healthcare data protection requirements .
• Flexibility: FHIR resources are built to adapt to evolving patient care needs and technological advancements .

Cloud-based FHIR implementations provide added flexibility and help meet regulatory standards . For new projects, FHIR's compatibility with widely-used web technologies like JSON and RDF makes it easier to adopt and reduces the learning curve compared to HL7's XML-based approach .

Conclusion

Key Comparisons

The evolution of healthcare data exchange highlights how HL7 v2 and FHIR cater to different telehealth needs. Their core differences influence how they're implemented and the results they deliver:

Aspect	HL7 v2	FHIR
Architecture	Message-based with fixed structures	Resource-based using RESTful APIs
Data Format	Pipes, text, and hats	JSON, RDF formats
Mobile/Telehealth Support	Limited	Built-in support for mobile health apps and IoMT devices
Implementation	Complex; requires specialized knowledge	Utilizes familiar web technologies
Market Growth	Established presence	Projected to grow from $3.4B (2022) to $6.2B (2027)

One practical example of FHIR's benefits comes from CoxHealth in Missouri. They integrated the FHIR-based VisualDx app into their Cerner EHR system, letting primary care doctors seamlessly access patient data on mobile devices during dermatology consultations .

These distinctions underline earlier discussions about the challenges and opportunities in implementing these standards. Choosing the right standard is crucial for building a telehealth platform that meets your organization's needs.

How Focal Can Help

As these standards continue to evolve, having the right tools to navigate them becomes essential. Focal offers AI-powered search capabilities that make it easier for healthcare teams to find technical documentation. The platform analyzes resources from various systems, helping users quickly locate implementation guides, compatibility details, and integration instructions.

Experts emphasize that FHIR's modular, web-friendly design aligns well with current software practices. Over time, it may become a must-have for health IT systems .