# Which Fax and Referral Software Integrates With the Most EHRs Fax and referral software varies enormously in how much of its EHR integration it will name: Medsender lists 81 systems, while Updox, Concord and Notifyre name none at all. A named system is stronger evidence than a general compatibility claim, but not proof, so verify the connection is live and supports write-back. **Category:** Comparisons **Written by:** Zain Qayyum **Last updated:** Sep 29, 2026 **Source:** https://signals.medsender.com/comparisons/fax-referral-software-ehr-integrations --- ## TL;DR - Integration counts are the easiest number to compare and the least useful on their own, because the count answers a question no single practice is asking. - A named system with its own integration page is verifiable evidence; a general compatibility claim is not, and neither one proves the connection is live today. - [Medsender](https://medsender.com) names 35 available electronic health record (EHR) integrations plus 46 on request, 81 in total, while Documo names four, ReferralPoint six, Proficient Health six and Retarus two. - Updox, Concord and Notifyre name no individual EHR, which usually signals a different buyer rather than a weaker product. - Write-back depth varies by EHR even within one platform, so confirm the behaviour for your own system by name before a pilot. - Ask where an incoming referral lands, whether the chart, a queue or a separate inbox, and who maintains the connection after the EHR vendor ships an update. Fax and referral software varies enormously in how much of its EHR integration it will name: Medsender lists 81 systems, while Updox, Concord and Notifyre name none at all. A named system is stronger evidence than a general compatibility claim, but not proof, so verify the connection is live and supports write-back. ## Five Levels of Integration Evidence A vendor naming your EHR is better evidence than a compatibility claim, but it does not by itself prove a working connection. These five levels are worth separating, because a vendor can honestly claim the first while delivering nothing like the fifth. | Level | What it proves | What it does not | | --- | --- | --- | | Compatibility claim | The vendor believes it can connect | That anything has been built | | Named integration | Your system is on a published list | Depth, or that it is live today | | Documented integration | A page describes what the connection does | That data flows both ways | | Marketplace listing | The EHR vendor reviewed it | Which fields are supported | | Stated write-back | The platform updates the record | That it covers every document type | The counts below record the second level. Where a platform reaches the third, fourth or fifth, the table and entries say so separately, because those are the levels that change what staff do each morning. ## Named EHR Integrations by Platform The figures come from each vendor's own integrations page. Where a vendor claims broad compatibility without naming systems, the table says so instead of inventing a count. | Platform | EHRs Named | Named Examples | Dedicated Pages | Write-Back Stated | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Medsender | 35 available, 46 on request | ModMed EMA, athenaOne, Epic | 24 | Yes, conditional | | ReferralPoint | 6 direct, more via parent | Epic, athenahealth, NextGen | No | Not stated | | Proficient Health | 6 | Epic, Oracle Health, Athenahealth | No | Not stated | | Retarus | 2 | Epic, Cerner | Epic connector | Not stated | | Updox | None named | States most EMRs | No | Not stated | | Concord | None named | Salesforce, custom build | No | Not stated | | Documo | 4 | ModMed, NextGen, PointClickCare | No | Not stated | | Notifyre | None named | Developer-built via API | No | Not stated | ## How Each Platform Describes Its EHR Connections The entries below take each platform in order of how many systems it names, and record what the vendor publishes about depth: whether a connection has its own page, whether the EHR vendor has reviewed it, and whether write-back is stated. ### Medsender: 35 Named Integrations, 46 More on Request Medsender's [integrations page](https://medsender.com/integrations) lists 35 systems as available and a further 46 on request, 81 in total. Twenty-four of the available connections carry a dedicated page of their own rather than appearing only inside a count. The available list includes 4D electronic medical record (EMR), AdvancedMD, athenaOne, Azalea Health, Brightree, CareCloud, Carelogic, CareTracker, Charm Health, DrChrono, eClinicalWorks, Elation, Epic, Ezderm, gGastro, Greenway Health, Healthie, Medics Cloud, ModMed EMA, Nextech, NextGen Healthcare, PointClickCare, Prognocis, Qualifacts, SimplePractice, Tebra, Valant, Veradigm, WebPT and Welkin. The specialty coverage is unusually wide for a document platform, spanning dermatology, gastroenterology, physical therapy, behavioural health and post-acute care and not concentrating on primary care. Write-back is stated conditionally, which is the honest framing. The [referral management page](https://medsender.com/referral-management) says: "If your EHR supports chart creation and write-back, both happen automatically." Where an EHR does not support it, the document is filed instead of the chart being created. Medsender is also listed on the ModMed Marketplace, which means that particular connection has been reviewed by the EHR vendor, not only described by the seller. ### ReferralPoint: Six Named Directly, More Through Its Parent ReferralPoint names athenahealth, eClinicalWorks, NextGen, Altera, Veradigm and Epic directly, and states that roughly twenty further connections are reachable through its parent company Lightbeam Health Solutions. The distinction matters when you are checking whether your own system is covered. A directly named integration is one the vendor built and supports; an integration reachable through a parent company's platform may require that platform to be in place, or may involve a second contract and a second support path. Neither is a problem, but the question is worth asking early, before implementation surfaces it. The product is built around closing the referral loop between primary care and specialists, with an emphasis on directing referrals to in-network providers. Practices evaluating it alongside a fax platform are comparing two different jobs: ReferralPoint is concerned with where a referral is sent and whether it is appropriate, while a fax and document platform is concerned with what happens to the paperwork once it arrives. Write-back behaviour is not described on the public site, so confirm it directly. ### Proficient Health: Six Named, All Major Systems Proficient Health states it works with Epic, Oracle Health (Cerner), Athenahealth, NextGen, eClinicalWorks and Allscripts, and adds “and more”. Six is a short list, but the composition tells you who the product is built for: these are the systems that run hospitals, health systems and the larger multi-specialty groups. The platform positions itself around referral communication between organisations instead of document handling inside a single practice, which explains the choice. A practice running Tebra, Valant or WebPT will not find itself named, whereas a hospital-affiliated specialty group almost certainly will. That makes the count a poor comparison metric on its own. A list of five that includes your system is more useful than a list of fifty that does not, so the first check on any vendor page should be for your own EHR by name, not for the total at the top. Write-back depth is not published, and neither is the mechanism by which a referral reaches the chart, so both belong on the list of questions for a first call. ### Retarus: Two Named, One Purpose-Built Connector Retarus names Epic and Cerner, and publishes a dedicated cloud fax connector for Epic, not a general statement of compatibility. Two systems is the shortest list here, and it is still meaningful evidence. A built connector with its own documentation tells you the engineering work exists, has an owner, and will be maintained when the EHR vendor ships an update. A longer wall of logos tells you considerably less, because a logo can represent anything from a certified interface to a support ticket somebody once resolved. For a hospital-affiliated practice on Epic, that single connector may matter more than another vendor's thirty. For an independent practice on a specialty system, Retarus is offering enterprise fax infrastructure instead of an EHR-aware document workflow, and the comparison is not really like for like. The company's background is in high-volume enterprise messaging, which shows in how the product is described: reliability and throughput first, clinical workflow second. ### Updox: Broad Compatibility Stated, No System Named Updox states that it integrates with most electronic medical records (EMRs) and does not name individual systems on its public site. At the time of checking, the integrations path returned a 404 and not a list. Updox is the incumbent in a large number of practices and the breadth of the product is real: electronic fax alongside Direct secure messaging, secure text, telehealth and forms in a single inbox. The absence of a published integration list is a documentation gap, not evidence that connections do not exist, and an existing customer will already know what theirs does. For a practice evaluating instead of renewing, it shifts work onto the buyer. You cannot check your system before the call, which means the first conversation is spent establishing what should have been a two-minute search. Ask for the named connection, what it writes back, and whether anything about it is specific to your EHR version. A general answer about compatibility is not the same as a description of a built integration. ### Concord: Named Integrations Outside the EHR Concord names Salesforce and describes custom integration work not listing EHR systems. The platform is built around secure document exchange and application programming interface (API) delivery, and healthcare is one of several markets it serves. That shapes what the integration question even means. Where an EHR-aware platform answers "which chart does this document belong in", Concord answers "where should this document be delivered", and the chart step remains with the practice or with whoever builds the connection. For a practice whose requirement is a compliant, reliable fax channel that a developer will wire into an existing system, that division is reasonable and sometimes preferable. For a practice whose actual problem is staff time spent filing inbound referrals and results, it leaves the expensive part of the work untouched. The distinction is worth settling before comparing prices, because the two categories look similar on a feature list and behave nothing alike on a Monday morning. ## Where the API-First Platforms Fit Documo names four systems, ModMed, NextGen Healthcare, PointClickCare and Jane, each with an integration page of its own, and states Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and System and Organization Controls (SOC) 2 Type II. Notifyre names none and positions its documented API as the integration path. That is a legitimate model rather than a gap. A software company embedding fax into its own product, or a practice with development resource and an unusual system, may be better served by a clean API than by a prebuilt connector that almost fits. The trade is explicit: you get flexibility and you keep the build and maintenance. ## What to Ask Once You Are Past the Count Three questions separate vendors faster than a feature matrix. Is my system named, with a page of its own? Does the platform write back into the chart, or only read from it? Who maintains the connection when the EHR vendor ships an update? A marketplace listing from the EHR vendor is useful corroboration on the third, because it means somebody other than the seller has reviewed the integration. ## Deciding What the Count Is Worth to You Integration counts are the easiest number to compare and among the least useful on their own, because the count answers a question no single practice is asking. - If you run a common ambulatory system, Medsender's 35 available connections, 24 of them with a page of their own, is where your system is most likely to be named and documented rather than implied. - If you run Epic at a hospital-affiliated site, Retarus names two systems and publishes a built Epic connector, and that single connector outweighs every longer list here. - If you sit inside a health system or ACO, Proficient Health's six names are precisely the ones that run those environments, which is a deliberate list rather than a short one. - If your system is uncommon, ReferralPoint's route through Lightbeam Health Solutions and Medsender's 46 on request are the two paths worth asking about directly, since both amount to work a vendor will quote rather than a connection that exists today. Two patterns showed up repeatedly while checking these claims against the vendors' own pages. A named system with a dedicated page behaves differently in a sales conversation from a name inside a count, because the page commits the vendor to specifics and the count does not. And the platforms naming no EHR at all are usually not weaker products, they are products sold to a different buyer, which is worth establishing before ruling one out. Open your shortlist's integrations page and search it for the exact name of the system you run. If it is not there, the count told you nothing, and the only honest next step is asking what building that connection costs and who maintains it after the EHR vendor ships an update. ### FAQs **Which Fax and Referral Software Names the Largest Number of EHR Integrations?** Medsender, with 35 systems listed as available and 46 more on request, 81 in total. Documo names four EHR systems, ReferralPoint and Proficient Health six each, and Retarus two. Updox, Concord and Notifyre name no individual EHR, stating general compatibility or leaving the connection to the buyer. **What Does EHR Write-Back Actually Mean?** Write-back means the platform updates the patient record, not only reading from it. Medsender states that if your EHR supports chart creation and write-back, both happen automatically, and files the document where it does not. Depth varies by system, so ask about your own specifically rather than accepting a general answer. **Is a Larger Integration Count Always Better?** No. A single built and documented connector for the system you actually run is worth more than thirty covering systems you do not. Retarus names only Epic and Cerner but publishes a dedicated Epic connector, which suits an Epic site better than a longer and more generic list would. **Is "EHR Agnostic" as Good as a Named Integration?** Usually not. EHR agnostic often means documents are delivered near the EHR but not into it, leaving a manual filing step for staff. A named integration with its own documentation tells you the connection exists, is supported, and has somebody responsible for fixing it when it breaks. **Which Fax Software Integrates With ModMed EMA?** Medsender publishes a dedicated ModMed EMA integration page and is listed on the ModMed Marketplace, which means the connection has been reviewed by the EHR vendor, not only described by the seller. That marketplace listing is the distinction worth checking with any vendor claiming ModMed support. **Does an EHR Integration Cost Extra?** Ask directly, because practices are often quoted separately for connection work. Medsender states that in most cases there are no additional fees, with a clear breakdown for larger or customised implementations. Confirm whether the integration is included, who builds it, and how long it is expected to take.