Healthcare technology
Healthcare Interoperability Modernization
Payer-facing CMS Cures Act and FHIR requirements had to become a usable, governed product and operating capability rather than a compliance checkbox.
Complexity
Technical exchange alone could not resolve onboarding, access, consent, auditability, data governance, exception handling, or accountable operating ownership. Making the data available was the smaller half of the problem.
My role
I owned the product responsibilities that translated payer requirements, regulatory constraints, controls, and technical delivery into an operable platform roadmap.
This was product ownership inside an employer's platform. It does not claim ownership of that employer's enterprise strategy or proprietary architecture.
What I changed
I connected the API and data requirements to access control, auditability, governance, customer onboarding, and the implementation decisions that determined whether the platform could actually be supported in production.
Result
Regulatory and technical requirements became a product and operating model that enterprise teams could implement and support.
What this means for your transformation
Interoperability makes information available. The operating model still determines who acts on it, how exceptions are handled, and how decisions stay governed and auditable.
If you are treating an interoperability or data-access mandate as an integration project, the operating questions underneath it — who acts, who approves, what is audited — will surface later and cost more.
About this work
Product experience from my employment. It does not imply employer endorsement, and no proprietary architecture or customer detail is published.
Principal-led healthcare advisory
Bring one operating problem under pressure.
Experience shapes where I look first. A diagnostic establishes what is true in your environment and what leadership should do next.