FHIR in Modern Healthcare Data Platforms: Benefits and Challenges
Listen to the PODCAST: FHIR TALKS discussing this topic here
Modern healthcare organizations are awash in data, from electronic health records (EHRs) and claims systems to wearables and health apps. Building a modern healthcare data platform means bringing all this data together, making it useful for analytics and new applications. Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) has emerged as a promising foundation for such platforms. FHIR is an open healthcare data standard that defines how to structure and exchange data via modern web technologies (JSON, HTTP, OAuth2). This article explores the pros and cons of using FHIR as the backbone of a healthcare data platform, balancing the technical and strategic perspectives for developers, implementers, business executives, and subject matter experts.
Benefits of a FHIR-Based Data Platform
Using FHIR to build your data platform offers numerous benefits. It leverages industry standards to ensure interoperability and consistency, provides a single source of truth for patient data, and supports a layered architecture that can drive both analytics and innovative data products. Let’s break down these advantages:
The Value of Standards and Interoperability
One of the greatest strengths of FHIR is that it embraces healthcare data standards. By using a standard model, you avoid reinventing the wheel for each project. This can improve data quality and streamline data exchange, ensuring that information can be understood across different systems (Healthcare Data Standards: Importance & Benefits). In practice, adopting the FHIR standard yields improved interoperability (systems can talk to each other), streamlined data management, and even enhanced patient care due to more accessible and comprehensive data (FHIR vs HL7: Your Guide to Healthcare Data Exchange Standards). In an industry notorious for siloed, incompatible data, having a common language like FHIR is incredibly valuable. It means data from a laboratory system, a pharmacy, and a hospital EHR can all be represented in a uniform way, reducing costly translation efforts and errors.
Moreover, FHIR’s grounding in web standards (it uses RESTful APIs with JSON or XML and OAuth2 for security) makes it developer-friendly and cloud-ready. Developers can use familiar tools and techniques to work with FHIR data. This lowers the entry barrier compared to older healthcare protocols, and it aligns with modern architecture practices. Many EHR vendors and health tech platforms now support FHIR out-of-the-box due to regulatory drivers (like the ONC’s 21st Century Cures Act, which mandates FHIR APIs). All of this means a FHIR-based platform is built on technologies that are widely understood and scalable in today’s IT environments.
FHIR as a Single Source of Truth
Another major benefit of using FHIR is creating a single source of truth for healthcare data. Traditionally, data gets copied and siloed across many systems (multiple databases, HL7 v2 interfaces, spreadsheets, etc.), leading to confusion about which copy is correct. FHIR takes a different approach: you aggregate and normalize data from multiple sources into a central FHIR repository. All applications then draw from this repository so that everyone sees the same up-to-date information (HL7 FHIR Use Cases | Rhapsody). This means less reconciliation work and more trust in your data.
By consolidating data in a FHIR store, you simplify data access for various consumers. Clinicians, patients, and apps query the same repository rather than connecting to dozens of systems. For example, a FHIR data repository can aggregate clinical, claims, and other data and then serve as the enterprise SSOT (single source of truth) for any API requests (CMS Interoperability & Patient Access Rule — FHIR Data Repository | by Faiz Chachiya | Medium). This improves consistency: if a patient’s address is updated, it updates in one place and every app sees the change. It also reduces duplication and integration pain – you integrate data into FHIR once, instead of maintaining point-to-point interfaces all over the enterprise. The result is greater flexibility and timely access to accurate data for all stakeholders, which ultimately can lead to better clinical decisions and patient outcomes.
Raw Data Layer as a Foundation
A FHIR-based platform often serves as the raw data layer of your analytics architecture. In this role, the FHIR store ingests data in its original granular form (as FHIR resources) from source systems. This raw layer preserves all the detail and can be considered the “source of truth” archive. Because FHIR has a rich and extensible data model covering most healthcare scenarios, it can capture almost anything: patients, encounters, medications, observations, claims, you name it. The data is stored with standard definitions (codes, fields) and relationships (references between resources), which makes it much easier to later interpret and repurpose than a hodgepodge of custom tables.
Crucially, using FHIR at the raw layer does not preclude other representations on top. In fact, it enables a powerful layered design: you can store everything as FHIR, but then derive secondary data stores or views optimized for specific purposes. The FHIR repository becomes the authoritative source from which other layers are built. This is similar to how a data lake might hold raw data, and data marts or warehouses are built for analytics – except here the “lake” is full of FHIR resources. The benefit is that anyone consuming the raw layer (now or in the future) can always fall back to standardized definitions. And because FHIR is API-driven, the raw data layer isn’t locked away; it’s accessible through queries or Bulk Data exports when needed.
Storing raw data in FHIR can future-proof your platform. You might not know every question you’ll want to ask of the data tomorrow. By keeping an unfiltered FHIR copy of sources, you retain the flexibility to compute new metrics or build new products later, without having to re-ingest or remodel the source data. In short, FHIR provides a robust foundation on which other layers can be constructed.
Analytics and BI Layer on Top of FHIR
While the raw FHIR data layer is great for interoperability and fine-grained data access, it’s not always ideal for heavy analytics by itself. The good news is you can add an analytics layer on top of the FHIR foundation. Many organizations use ETL processes or on-the-fly querying to transform FHIR data into analytic-friendly formats (like relational tables or OLAP cubes). For example, you might extract key data from FHIR resources into a star schema in a SQL database or flatten FHIR data into Parquet files for BigQuery/Spark analysis. This analytics layer can be built incrementally and updated as the FHIR data updates.
Why not analyze directly on FHIR? FHIR’s JSON structure is hierarchical and flexible, which is great for interchange but can be challenging for analytics that expect flat tables. Directly running complex aggregations across nested FHIR data can be slower or more complicated. As one source notes, FHIR’s structure was not originally designed for analytical queries, and organizations must overcome performance and structural limitations to extract meaningful insights efficiently (FHIR Analytics: A New Era of Healthcare Data Insights). The typical solution is to leverage FHIR for what it does best (standardizing data) and then pipe the data into an OLAP or SQL environment for heavy-duty analysis. This gives you the best of both worlds: data integrity via the FHIR standard and performance via proven analytics databases.
A common pattern is to create FHIR-based data marts. For instance, you could take all FHIR Observation resources (labs, vitals, etc.) and turn them into a neatly tabular dataset for a dashboard or machine learning model. In one practical guide, each FHIR resource type can effectively act as a mini data mart, which you then use to drive dashboards and predictive modeling (From FHIR Resources to Data Marts: A Practical Guide - Substack) (What is the FHIR service in Azure Health Data Services?). By validating and standardizing data in FHIR first, those downstream datasets are cleaner and more reliable. The result is an analytics layer that can power enterprise reporting, quality measures, and research, all sourced from the same trusted FHIR data foundation.
Enabling a Data Product Layer
On top of the analytics layer, organizations are increasingly looking to build data products. A data product in this context might be a targeted data application, a dashboard, a patient-facing app, or even an internal dataset packaged for a specific purpose. Using FHIR can accelerate data product development for several reasons:
Standardized data model: Product teams don’t need to spend months defining data contracts from scratch – they can reuse the FHIR definitions (with extensions as needed). This speeds up development. For example, a startup can prototype a new healthcare app quickly by leveraging FHIR’s predefined resources for patients, medications, appointments, etc., rather than inventing their own schemas. Adopting FHIR early bypasses the complex process of defining custom data models, thereby speeding up product development and time-to-market (FHIR Resources 101: Streamline Your Health Systems Now).
Reusable APIs: If your platform exposes a FHIR API, any new data product can simply query that API to get the data it needs. This reduces integration effort for new tools. A clinical decision support app, an analytics dashboard, and a population health tool can all pull from the same FHIR endpoints. In contrast, without FHIR, each new product might require a custom feed or database query.
Plug-and-play with third-party apps: FHIR is widely supported, which means you can plug in third-party solutions (like SMART on FHIR apps) or allow external partners to develop on your platform. A rich ecosystem of FHIR-based apps already exists. Your data platform can become a data marketplace of sorts, where internal and external developers build new solutions on your FHIR data. We see this in practice with SMART on FHIR – by providing a standard data layer (FHIR) and standard auth (OAuth2), health systems enabled a whole marketplace of substitutable apps to flourish (Something New and Powerful: SMART on FHIR® – SMART Health IT) (Something New and Powerful: SMART on FHIR® – SMART Health IT).
In essence, once you have a solid FHIR foundation and an analytics layer, you can treat data as a product to be packaged and delivered to various users. Whether it’s a clinician-facing mobile app showing a patient’s consolidated record, or an executive dashboard aggregating enterprise metrics, the FHIR-native platform supports diverse products without needing to rebuild data pipelines for each. This not only accelerates innovation but also ensures that each product is drawing from the same consistent data source (so your analytics dashboard and your care management app won’t show conflicting information).
Serving Diverse Use Cases from One Platform
A FHIR-native data platform is versatile. It can support a wide range of use cases and user personas off the same data foundation. Here are some examples of what you can do once your data is standardized in FHIR:
Data Aggregation: Combining data from many sources (EHRs, lab systems, claims systems, wearables) becomes easier when everything is mapped into FHIR. You can aggregate patient records across multiple facilities to get a unified health record. FHIR’s consistent structure and use of standard codes mean you’re aggregating “apples to apples.” This is invaluable for health information exchanges and organizations merging data post-acquisitions. Instead of writing custom transforms between each pair of systems, you map all sources into FHIR and aggregate there.
Data Product Development: As noted, teams can rapidly develop new applications or services using the FHIR API. For instance, a developer can build a care coordination app that pulls in a patient’s problems, meds, and recent lab results via FHIR calls, without needing direct database access. Product managers can envision new features (like a patient risk score calculator) and know the needed data is accessible through standard queries. FHIR essentially turns your data platform into a development platform – enabling hackathons, partner integrations, and internal innovation using a common language.
Enterprise Analytics Platforms: FHIR can serve as the backbone for an enterprise-wide analytics solution. Hospitals and insurers are beginning to use FHIR data repositories feeding into analytics tools to replace or augment traditional enterprise data warehouses. With FHIR Bulk Data (bulk export in NDJSON format), large-scale data extraction for analytics is feasible (High Performance Computing on Flat FHIR Files Created with the ...). Cloud vendors offer FHIR->BigQuery connectors, for example, to analyze FHIR data at scale (End-to-end workloads with FHIR-based protected health information ...) (Analyzing FHIR data in BigQuery | Cloud Architecture Center). The advantage is that your enterprise analytics is directly tied to the source standard – when new data types (e.g. genomics or social determinants) become available in FHIR, you can integrate them more easily than if you had to redesign a custom schema.
Serving Different Personas: A single FHIR data platform can cater to many personas with different needs. Data analysts can export normalized data sets to analyze clinical quality or operational efficiency. Clinicians can use FHIR-enabled apps at the point of care to get a 360° patient view. Product managers can draw on the repository to measure feature usage or population outcomes. Even patients (via third-party apps) can retrieve their data through FHIR APIs under interoperability rules. By having one platform that speaks FHIR, you ensure that each persona – from a data scientist using SQL to a physician using an iPad app – is ultimately working off the same core data. This consistency is powerful; it reduces the disconnect that often exists between what analysts see and what front-line staff see.
Enrichment and Curation: With all data in one standard format, it opens opportunities for enriching and curating the data centrally. For example, you can run processes to fill in coding gaps (mapping local codes to standard terminologies) or flag data quality issues once and have those improvements reflected everywhere. FHIR’s design includes support for terminology services and provenance. You might enrich clinical data with standardized code translations (LOINC, SNOMED, etc.) using the FHIR terminology operations, enhancing its usability for analytics and decision support. Data curators can add annotations or corrections (via FHIR extensions or audit trails) that then propagate to all uses of the data. Essentially, FHIR allows a layer of data governance and curation to sit in your platform, improving data for all downstream use cases.
Analytics Data Products: You can turn analytics results back into FHIR resources – for example, generating a FHIR MeasureReport or risk score Observation that is stored in the repository. This way, analytics outcomes themselves become standardized data that can be queried by others. An example might be an AI model that reads the FHIR data and writes back a prediction (as a FHIR Observation resource), which then a clinician-facing app retrieves via the same API. This workflow closes the loop: the analytics layer feeds the data product layer in a consistent way. Many organizations also build dashboard products (for executives or care managers) that are essentially curated views of the FHIR data with some enrichment. By using FHIR under the hood, those dashboards can be more easily maintained and updated as the data model evolves (since they rely on standard fields/codes).
Overall, a FHIR-native platform is remarkably adaptable. As one early adopter put it, FHIR is “the real deal that can be applied to solve different clinical, administrative and business problems” ( FHIR: What's great, what isn't so good, and what it's not built to do). At Health Samurai (a company that has built FHIR solutions), they were able to build cloud EHRs, care coordination systems, patient-facing mobile apps, telemedicine platforms, and data analytics solutions all using FHIR as the core ( FHIR: What's great, what isn't so good, and what it's not built to do). This showcases how diverse the use cases can be when you have a solid standards-based backbone.
Modern Web Stack and Performance
FHIR’s modern tech stack brings performance and scalability advantages when implemented well. Because it’s web-native, a FHIR server can leverage all the tooling of the web and cloud (load balancers, caching, horizontal scaling, etc.). For example, stateless RESTful APIs scale out easily under load – you can add more server instances behind an API gateway to handle increasing traffic. FHIR’s use of JSON (and optional binary for certain data) is generally lighter-weight and faster to parse than older XML-based standards or custom flat files. Many FHIR APIs also support filtering, paging, and searching out of the box, so consumers can retrieve just the data they need efficiently.
In terms of security and access, FHIR works hand-in-hand with OAuth2 (particularly the SMART on FHIR profile). OAuth2 is a proven, scalable authorization framework used by large-scale systems worldwide. Using OAuth2/OpenID Connect for your data platform means you can delegate authentication to trusted identity providers and issue tokens that control data access in a fine-grained way. This standard approach simplifies integration – developers don’t need to learn a proprietary auth system, and many libraries and cloud services support OAuth2 readily. It also means you can achieve secure access at scale (think millions of patients using apps to access data via FHIR API securely, as is the case with Apple Health consuming patient FHIR APIs from provider portals).
On the cloud side, a FHIR-based platform can be fully cloud-native. Several managed services (Microsoft Azure Health Data Services, Google Cloud Healthcare API, AWS HealthLake, etc.) offer serverless FHIR stores that automatically handle scaling, backups, and compliance. Even open-source FHIR server implementations (like HAPI FHIR, Smile CDR, IBM FHIR Server) are designed to run in containers and orchestrate in clusters. This means you can achieve high availability and throughput for your data platform without having to build everything from scratch.
FHIR even has bulk data export/import capabilities for big data use cases, which use NDJSON (newline-delimited JSON) for efficiency (High Performance Computing on Flat FHIR Files Created with the ...). These features allow exporting entire patient cohorts or importing large data sets in a streaming fashion, leveraging cloud storage. Such capabilities illustrate that the FHIR stack can handle population-scale data when needed, on par with other modern big-data solutions.
In short, building on FHIR aligns your platform with the modern web/cloud architecture, which tends to be more scalable and easier to maintain than legacy healthcare interfaces. You get to use REST, JSON, and OAuth2 – all well-understood and high-performance technologies – rather than being stuck with batch file transfers or proprietary APIs that don’t scale. This modern foundation is a big plus for performance, developer productivity, and future growth.
Long-Term Maintainability of Standard Models
Finally, one often overlooked benefit of using FHIR as your data model is long-term maintainability. Healthcare data is complex and ever-evolving. New regulations, new data types (e.g. genetic data, social determinants), and new integration needs pop up regularly. If you build a platform on a custom data model, you assume the full burden of maintaining and updating that model over time. What happens when you need to add a new field or support a new use case? With a one-off model, you’ll need significant developer effort, and there’s a risk of making breaking changes or accumulating technical debt.
By contrast, FHIR is maintained and evolved by a large community of experts (through HL7 International). The standard is updated in iterations (DSTUs, STU releases, then normative versions), and it continuously incorporates the “wisdom of the crowd.” For example, FHIR has over 150 resource types covering many domains, each refined by subject matter experts. As one observer noted, FHIR’s data models carry the “accumulated wisdom of many experts,” making it a solid foundation for storing clinical and financial data ( FHIR: What's great, what isn't so good, and what it's not built to do). When you use a standard model like this, you benefit from that collective expertise without having to hire it all in-house.
Maintaining a standard-based model is also easier because tools and updates are available. If HL7 publishes a new FHIR version with a Resource for a new area (say, MedicationUsage or Genomics), you can incorporate it rather than designing from scratch. Tooling like schema validators, code generators, and testing frameworks are provided by the community to help ensure your data remains conformant. There is also extensive documentation and implementation guides for FHIR, which new team members can learn – whereas a custom model lives only in your internal docs and the minds of its creators.
Another maintainability aspect is vendor and developer support. With FHIR becoming a common skill, over time it may be easier to hire developers familiar with FHIR than ones who can grok your proprietary schema. The FHIR community is active and growing; you can often get questions answered by experts on forums in hours. If you run into a problem, chances are someone else has too, and solutions or best practices may already exist. This ecosystem means your platform isn’t a lonely custom project but part of a broader industry movement, which tends to be more sustainable.
There is also the consideration of regulatory alignment and vendor neutrality. Using the standard model means you’re aligned with industry interoperability mandates (reducing the risk of future compliance issues). It also helps prevent vendor lock-in: if your data is in FHIR format, you could theoretically migrate it to another FHIR-compliant system down the line much more easily than if it were in a closed format. All of this contributes to a platform that is easier to maintain and adapt over the long term, as business needs and technologies change. In summary, standard-based models like FHIR are built to last, whereas quick custom models may become brittle and costly to update. As we’ll discuss, custom approaches might be faster initially, but they often falter as the years go by.
Challenges and Considerations (The Cons)
While FHIR provides a strong framework, it’s not a silver bullet. Adopting FHIR for your data platform comes with its own challenges and trade-offs. It’s important to be aware of these cons so you can plan for them and mitigate risks:
Limited FHIR Expertise Among Developers: One practical challenge is finding or training developers who deeply understand FHIR. The standard is complex and still relatively new; not every software engineer has experience with healthcare data models, let alone FHIR specifics. As a result, teams often face a learning curve. The technical complexity of FHIR implementation requires specialized knowledge and skills (Top 5 challenges while implementing FHIR). If your developers are new to FHIR, they’ll need time (or outside help) to get up to speed on nuances like profiles, extensions, and the various resource inter-relationships. This lack of expertise can slow down projects initially. The good news is that investing in training or bringing in FHIR experts can address the gap, and over time FHIR knowledge is becoming more common. But in the short term, expect a need for education and perhaps mentorship to use FHIR correctly.
Limited Familiarity Among Stakeholders: It’s not just developers – stakeholders (business leaders, project managers, even clinicians) might not understand what FHIR is and isn’t. If executives have never heard of FHIR or only know it as a buzzword, they may be hesitant to green-light a FHIR-centric project. Conversely, they might have unrealistic expectations that FHIR will automatically solve all data issues. This means part of adopting FHIR is evangelizing and educating non-technical stakeholders about its value and limitations. For example, explaining how FHIR can enable patient access or better analytics is key to getting buy-in. Without that familiarity, stakeholders might favor traditional approaches they understand better. We’ve seen cases where, even after APIs were built, actual usage remained low because end-users and partners weren’t ready – for instance, some payer organizations found only 0–5% of their members were utilizing the new FHIR patient access APIs initially (3 Challenges and Lessons Learned for FHIR Implementations | CAQH). Low utilization can reinforce stakeholder skepticism (“why invest more in FHIR if few are using it?”). Overcoming this requires demonstrating the potential and aligning FHIR initiatives with clear business goals (regulatory compliance, enabling specific use cases, etc.).
Misunderstandings of FHIR’s Scope (What It Solves vs Doesn’t): There are common misconceptions about FHIR that can lead to pitfalls. It’s vital to know that FHIR is only a standard/specification – it provides data models and API guidelines. FHIR does not inherently handle your system architecture, integrations, or analytics needs beyond data exchange ( FHIR: What's great, what isn't so good, and what it's not built to do). In other words, adopting FHIR doesn’t automatically give you a data warehouse, a analytics engine, or a magically secure system – those elements require additional design and tools. For example, some might think “We have FHIR, so we don’t need a separate analytics database.” In reality, as we discussed, you often still need to create analytic data stores or use BI tools on top of FHIR. Similarly, security isn’t solved by FHIR itself – you must implement OAuth2, access control, consent management around it. If stakeholders misunderstand FHIR’s role, they might either overestimate its capabilities or blame FHIR for things it was never meant to do. Clear communication is needed: FHIR addresses interoperability of data; it does not solve all integration or processing challenges. Knowing this, you can set correct expectations and plan complementary solutions (like data lakes, identity management, etc.) alongside FHIR.
Traditional Analytics Skills and Tools Are More Common: A FHIR-native platform might be technically elegant, but you could face resistance or difficulty because the workforce and tool ecosystem in analytics is geared toward traditional relational databases. Data analysts and engineers often know SQL, relational modeling, and tools like Tableau or PowerBI that work best with tables. Introducing FHIR JSON data may require new tools or at least an understanding of how to flatten or query it via FHIR APIs. It can be harder to find talent who can write efficient FHIRPath queries or work with FHIR’s structure than it is to find a SQL developer. Thus, building analytics directly on FHIR might be slower initially simply due to talent availability. Many organizations end up converting FHIR to relational form for analysis to leverage existing skill sets – but that conversion is an extra step that a pure SQL-based system might not need. Additionally, off-the-shelf analytics platforms (the “traditional” ones) may not integrate with FHIR out of the box. You might have to build custom connectors or use middleware, whereas those platforms can easily connect to an Oracle or Snowflake database. This gap is closing as FHIR adoption grows (we now see FHIR connectors for major analytics tools), but it’s still a consideration: staffing and tooling for FHIR could be more challenging until it becomes more mainstream.
Simplicity of Data Import/ETL in Traditional Systems: If you ask a data engineer to ingest a CSV or connect to a source system, they likely have a standard playbook (use SQL COPY into a table, or use an ETL tool like Informatica/Talend to map fields). In a FHIR-based approach, importing data often means mapping source data into FHIR resources and possibly bundling them in transactions – a process that can be more complex. The available ETL tools for FHIR are improving, but many legacy systems don’t output FHIR natively, so you need mapping logic (sometimes using HL7 v2 to FHIR converters, or custom scripts). In short, ingesting data into a FHIR repository can be harder than populating a simple relational database, especially at first. Traditional data warehouses accept bulk loads readily, whereas a FHIR server might require you to chunk data into bundles, ensure referential integrity between resources, and handle FHIR-specific errors. There are solutions (for example, the bulk data import endpoints on some cloud FHIR services (FHIR import options | Cloud Healthcare API)), but it’s a new skill to learn. If you have a lot of one-time historical data to load, a custom schema might allow quick and dirty loading, whereas with FHIR you must adhere to the standard’s rules during import. All of this means initial data onboarding can be slower with FHIR. However, once data is in, the ongoing interoperability benefits might outweigh that startup cost. The key is planning for a robust data mapping and transformation process and possibly using tools/frameworks that assist with FHIR ETL.
Data Aggregation and Complex Queries May Be Harder: Relational databases have decades of optimization for joining tables and aggregating (with SQL engines that can do advanced JOINs, GROUP BYs, indexing, etc.). In a FHIR store, data is connected via references and often nested; performing multi-step aggregations (e.g., “for each patient, count lab results of a certain type in the past year”) might require multiple API calls or a custom search parameter. Out-of-the-box, FHIR servers support a limited set of query combinations. Aggregation is often better handled by exporting data to a warehouse or using a separate analytic engine. Some users find that “aggregating data is easier in relational databases” – this is generally true if you want cross-resource joins or to compute summary statistics. To mitigate this, you might use BI tools that can query FHIR directly, or as mentioned, spin off a mirror of the data in a relational form. But doing that means maintaining two representations of data (FHIR and relational), which adds complexity. This challenge is essentially the flip side of the flexibility benefit: FHIR’s rich structure vs. the rigid but optimization-friendly structure of a relational schema. There’s active work in the community on this (for instance, projects mapping FHIR to analytic models like OMOP CDM to get the best of both (FHIR Analytics: A New Era of Healthcare Data Insights)). For now, be prepared that pure FHIR may not satisfy all analytical querying needs efficiently – additional data modeling for analytics is often required, and that’s extra effort compared to a scenario where you design a custom schema solely for your known analytics upfront.
Custom Models Are Quick to Build, But Harder to Maintain: This is a nuanced “con” – it’s really the mirror of the maintainability pro. If you choose not to use FHIR and instead design a custom data model, you might get to a minimally viable product faster (since you tailor it exactly to current requirements, with no extra fields or complexity). Indeed, teams often favor custom models in the short run because they feel simpler and more directly aligned with immediate use cases. However, many have found that those custom models become a burden in the long run. As your needs evolve, you end up continuously refactoring the model, writing new migration scripts, and possibly breaking backwards compatibility for apps using it. The initial speed of development can lead to technical debt down the road. A vivid example comes from the SMART on FHIR project: in its early days, the team built a custom set of resource models and API for apps. It worked, but when FHIR emerged, they realized aligning with the standard would be far more sustainable. They “completely adapted [their] work to a standards-based effort,” gaining new capabilities for app developers and making vendor adoption easier. In other words, the custom model approach hit a maintainability wall, and switching to FHIR provided a more future-proof path. This story is playing out in many organizations – a quick custom solution meets the first need, but then integrating with external partners or adding new features becomes painful. FHIR may seem slower to start with, but it pays dividends in maintenance. So, the challenge is having the patience and foresight to invest in the standard. You might encounter pressure to “just do it quick our own way”; resisting that in favor of a standard approach can be tough, especially if short-term deadlines loom.
In summary, adopting FHIR for your data platform requires careful consideration of team skills, stakeholder buy-in, additional infrastructure (for analytics, security, etc.), and a commitment to standards that might feel cumbersome initially. These challenges are real, but none are insurmountable. Many can be addressed with proper planning: train your team, use integration engines or middleware to simplify FHIR mapping, set realistic goals for what FHIR will solve vs. what still needs separate solutions, and perhaps start with a hybrid approach (e.g., implement FHIR for certain high-value data domains first, while keeping other parts in familiar systems until you ramp up expertise).
Conclusion
Building a modern healthcare data platform on FHIR is a bit like adopting a healthy diet – it can be tough at first when you’re used to fast food (quick custom hacks), but it sets you up for long-term wellness. The benefits of using FHIR – a unified standard, single source of truth, layered architecture, broad use case support, modern tech stack, and maintainability – are compelling for organizations aiming to be data-driven and interoperable. FHIR can truly transform a disjointed data ecosystem into a future-ready, scalable platform for innovation. On the other hand, one must enter the FHIR world with eyes open to the challenges. Limited expertise and misunderstandings can hinder progress if not addressed, and certain tasks (like analytics or data ingestion) may need extra effort or tooling in a FHIR-first approach.
The key is to strike the right balance: use FHIR where it adds value, complement it with the right databases or tools for your specific use cases, and invest in growing the knowledge and confidence of your team and stakeholders. When done right, a FHIR-based data platform can break down silos, empower patients and clinicians with better information, and enable your organization to rapidly develop new data products in a maintainable way. It represents a shift from ad-hoc data tactics to a more strategic, standards-based approach.
For those considering this journey, keep learning and sharing experiences. The community around FHIR is its strength, so tap into that collective knowledge. Stay tuned for our upcoming FHIR 101 course, where we’ll dive into the fundamentals of FHIR and how to get started on a solid footing. Whether you’re a developer or an executive, understanding the ins and outs of FHIR will help you leverage its power while navigating its challenges. With the right approach, FHIR can indeed light the way to a more connected and intelligent healthcare data future. 🔥📊