Healthcare IT consulting from engineers who build
Our healthcare technology consulting answers one decision at a time: which architecture, which EHR integration path, build or buy, which interface engine, whether a vendor proposal holds up, or how to meet CMS-0057-F and ONC deadlines. The consultants are the engineers who build FHIR, HL7 v2 and X12 systems every week, so every recommendation comes with the evidence behind it and a plan a team can execute.
Discuss your technology decisionFor CTOs, founders, CIOs and product leaders at health tech companies, payers and provider organizations. Updated September 26, 2026.
The question, the options and who has to sign off
Workflows, architecture, vendor documentation, sandboxes and code
A proof-of-fit spike where the answer is uncertain
A recommendation, its risks and a scoped next step
Illustrative workflow · scope tailored to your environment
The short answer
Healthcare technology consulting is expert advice on the architecture, platforms, integrations and compliance engineering behind healthcare software. A consulting engagement starts with a specific decision, such as how to integrate with Epic, whether to build or buy an EHR module, which interface engine to use after the Mirth Connect license change or how to meet CMS-0057-F API deadlines. It works through the evidence (your workflows, systems, contracts and code, plus vendor sandboxes) and ends with a written recommendation, its trade-offs and a scoped plan. Engagements typically run 2 to 6 weeks.
How CTOs evaluate healthcare interoperability vendorsStart with the real problem
An integration proposal can look complete while depending on a write API the EHR does not expose, source data that is not coded, a vendor program with a months-long queue or an operational owner nobody has named. Generic advisory work repeats capability lists. We check the actual workflow, the actual APIs and the actual contracts, and run a short proof-of-fit test wherever the answer could change the recommendation.
What we build
Each engagement has a fixed question and a written output. Most run 2 to 6 weeks.
An independent review of a healthcare platform's architecture against scale, security, interoperability and maintainability goals, before a funding round, a large customer or a rebuild.
Healthcare product engineering servicesConfirm what Epic, Oracle Health, athenahealth, eClinicalWorks or another EHR exposes for your workflow, through which program, with what write access and lead time.
EHR and EMR integration servicesCompare building, buying or extending for an EHR module, integration engine, FHIR server, RCM component or AI tool against cost, fit, lock-in and exit terms.
Choosing a healthcare integration platformFor investors and acquirers: code quality, architecture, security posture, HIPAA safeguards, integration debt and team risk in a health tech target.
Turn CMS-0057-F, ONC HTI rules, information blocking and HIPAA Security Rule obligations into an engineering roadmap with dates.
CMS-0057-F interoperability suiteAssess a legacy EHR, practice management system or interface engine estate and choose between strangling, re-platforming, replacing or licensing.
Healthcare legacy system modernizationYour starting point
Turn a promising healthcare use case into a bounded first release. Separate what users need now from platform capabilities that can follow later.
Inspect integration coupling, data ownership and release constraints. Separate architectural debt from a process, access or staffing problem.
Assess a proposed build, vendor architecture or acquisition against the workflows and obligations your team actually owns.
The Engineering Engagement
Workstreams are selected around your priorities. Each comes with an output your team can inspect, test and own.
Map users, source systems, handoffs and exceptions. Identify the business outcome the first release must demonstrate.
Check supported FHIR resources and HL7 v2 messages, vendor programs, customer-specific access, identifiers, data availability and partner onboarding.
Compare build, buy and extend options against interoperability, maintainability, security, cost and exit requirements.
Map HIPAA Security Rule safeguards, 42 CFR Part 2, ONC criteria and CMS-0057-F requirements to the systems that must implement them.
Break the work into acceptance-led milestones. Separate team-controlled work from third-party approvals and data remediation.
Inspect operational ownership, recovery, sensitive-data handling and the evidence needed before go-live.
Compare your options
Match the adviser to the decision. This is how we suggest buyers compare their options.
| Engineering-led healthcare consulting | Strategy consulting firm | Vendor pre-sales architects | In-house team alone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best for | Architecture, integration, platform and modernization decisions | Operating model, market and enterprise transformation | Designing around that vendor's product | Decisions inside known systems |
| Evidence used | Sandboxes, APIs, code, contracts and workflows | Interviews, benchmarks and frameworks | The vendor's documentation | Internal knowledge |
| Independence | Vendor-neutral across EHRs, engines and clouds | Independent, often with implementation arms | Tied to one product | Independent, with internal bias |
| Typical length | 2 to 6 weeks | Months | Part of a sales cycle | Competes with delivery work |
| Output | Decision memo, ADRs, proof-of-fit results, scoped plan | Strategy deck and roadmap | Solution design | Varies |
| Can it be implemented | Yes, by any team, including ours | Usually by a separate firm | With that vendor | Yes |
Expertise is in the decisions
Agree what you will decide at the end: a platform choice, a release boundary, an investment direction or the next implementation step. Research without a decision becomes an open-ended expense.
If the key assumption is whether an EHR exposes the data or write access you need, test that boundary in a sandbox early. A polished front-end prototype does not answer an integration-access question.
Document who changes mappings, approves clinical behavior, operates interfaces and investigates incidents. A design without an owner is not a delivery plan.
Interface engine licenses, EHR marketplace fees, FHIR server hosting and AI model contracts all carry exit costs: data export formats, channel portability, notice periods and re-certification. We put the exit path in the scorecard so a cheap start does not become an expensive lock-in, as many Mirth Connect users found when version 4.6 moved to a commercial license.
We provide engineering analysis and evidence. Counsel interprets the law, ONC-Authorized Certification Bodies certify health IT and your clinical leaders own clinical policy.
Every timeline we give names the partner access, source readiness and acceptance scope it depends on, so the plan changes visibly when an assumption does.
Timeline
Most engagements run 2 to 6 weeks. A single integration feasibility question sits at the short end; due diligence or a modernization assessment at the long end.
Agree the question, the options, the decision makers and the evidence to inspect.
Workflows, architecture, code, contracts and vendor documentation reviewed with your team.
Proof-of-fit spikes against sandboxes or code where uncertainty could change the answer.
Readout with decision makers, trade-offs and the scoped next step.
Delivered work
Client names are withheld; each is a real engagement. Our open-source healthcare engineering is public on GitHub.
A headless EHR with a FHIR R4 API and SMART App Launch that passed 47 of 47 ONC (g)(10) SMART App Launch standalone patient tests in Inferno.
Open-source prior authorization servers for the CMS-0057-F Da Vinci implementation guides, run against the Inferno test kits.
Showed early that a shared database was ruled out by data-protection law and designed a federated exchange so records never leave each hospital.
Reviewed and hardened an inherited clearinghouse integration for a behavioral health EHR: claim validation, acknowledgement handling and remittance reconciliation.
From discussion to delivery
Agree the business outcome, stakeholders and evidence we need to inspect.
Review workflows, architecture, source data and partner dependencies with your team.
Run targeted proof-of-fit work where uncertainty could change the recommendation.
Review findings, trade-offs, owners and a proposed next scope with decision makers.
We agree the scope, dependencies, acceptance criteria and commercial model before implementation. Your existing team can stay involved throughout.
Find the right starting point ↓Before you commit
Healthcare IT consulting helps organizations choose, design and plan the technology behind care delivery and healthcare operations. An engagement starts with a specific decision, reviews the workflows, systems, contracts and code involved, tests uncertain points in vendor sandboxes, and ends with a written recommendation and a scoped plan.
Engagements are fixed-scope and priced from the question, the number of systems and vendors involved and whether proof-of-fit testing is needed. We quote after a first call so you know the cost and the output before you start.
Most run 2 to 6 weeks. A single EHR integration feasibility question can be answered in about two weeks; technical due diligence or a modernization assessment takes longer.
A decision memo with the recommendation, options considered, trade-offs and risks; architecture decision records; proof-of-fit results where we ran tests; and a scoped delivery plan with assumptions.
Yes. We compare the proposed architecture and delivery scope against your use cases, check the integration and access assumptions, identify missing dependencies and recommend questions or proof-of-fit tests.
No. The deliverables are written for your team and any implementation partner. If you want us to build, we scope that separately.
Consulting answers a technology decision: architecture, vendor choice, technical risk or modernization. Product discovery defines users, workflows and the release scope for a product you are about to build. Many clients start with one and follow with the other.
Yes. We confirm what each EHR exposes for your workflow through FHIR R4, HL7 v2 and vendor APIs, the developer program steps, write access and customer approvals, and test it in the vendor sandbox where access allows.
Yes. We map the Patient Access, Provider Access, Payer-to-Payer and Prior Authorization API requirements and their January 2027 deadlines to your systems, and plan the Da Vinci CRD, DTR and PAS work. Our open-source Da Vinci servers are public on GitHub.
Yes, for investors and acquirers. We review architecture, code quality, security and HIPAA safeguards, integration debt, scalability and team risk, and report red flags with remediation effort.
A short description of the workflow, the systems involved and the decision you need to make. Existing diagrams and de-identified examples help; patient records and credentials are not needed.
A useful first conversation
Tell us what exists today, who uses it and where the workflow breaks. We’ll discuss the scope, access dependencies and the next practical step.
A product overview and a de-identified workflow are enough to start. No patient records or credentials are needed.
These are independent reference sources, not endorsements. Applicability, platform access and current requirements are confirmed for your project.
