Vendor lock-in has a bad reputation. Once an electronic medical record (EHR) system is implemented, it can feel like a trap that's difficult to escape. A lack of APIs and poor interoperability often make integration with third-party applications nearly impossible. The IT vendor may control pricing, while the healthcare provider is limited to only the features the vendor offers. However, vendor lock-in, if strategically managed, can be beneficial.
Implementing electronic health records is like a lifetime marriage
Vendor lock-in occurs when a hospital, clinic, or individual practitioner becomes reliant on the health IT services of a specific provider. Critics argue that this limits the flexibility of digitalization and hinders innovation. It is also costly, as health IT companies can dictate prices, and service providers have no choice but to accept them. Switching software is nearly impossible – it's expensive, hard to justify, and requires time and effort that healthcare providers often can't spare.
However, vendor lock-in is often misunderstood, especially in complex data ecosystems such as healthcare, where proven and reliable data flow is essential, and system updates, to ensure compliance with legal requirements, might be frequent. The priority is patient safety, determined by the quality of data and cybersecurity. This is why IT providers are often hesitant to allow their systems to integrate with third-party solutions. It could mean losing control over the entire IT environment, leading to increased errors and vulnerabilities in cybersecurity.
Of course, it must be honestly admitted that vendor lock-in also has its significant drawbacks: no competition drives high prices and healthcare providers can add only these features that are available in the current IT vendor’s portfolio.
Many myths surround vendor lock-in. For instance, it’s not always true that healthcare providers are forced to accept whatever prices IT vendors set, or that cutting ties with a vendor would automatically lead to lower costs through increased competition. The reality is simpler: computerization isn’t a one-time purchase; it’s an ongoing partnership that can last for years. Reliable IT providers also want that partnership to succeed.
Moreover, the belief that “others are cheaper” is often misleading. Long-term costs, known as the total cost of ownership (TCO), include not just the purchase price, but also installation, usage, and maintenance. All of these must be considered when evaluating a vendor.
Loyalty pays off
For vendor lock-in to be beneficial, one key condition must be met: the IT provider must be experienced and hold a stable position in the market. Just like in a marriage, trust and responsibility are essential, and the success of digital transformation depends on close collaboration between the healthcare organization and the technology partner.
When this foundation is in place, the first significant benefit is the seamless integration of systems, modules, and features delivered by the same vendor across both clinical and administrative areas. Achieving interoperability with multiple vendors is notoriously tricky. Still, with a single IT provider, it's easier to ensure seamless data exchange, a unified user experience, and a comprehensive view of each patient’s health. This streamlining supports better information processing, which can directly improve care quality. All of these factors contribute to enhanced treatment safety and quality.
Another significant advantage is that a single provider takes full responsibility for keeping all systems compliant with legal and regulatory updates. Instead of coordinating multiple updates across different systems, a single update does the job. This consistency is also strategically important for data security. Centralized IT systems can better defend against cyberattacks by using unified security protocols. Trusted vendors typically follow data standards like HL7 or FHIR and comply with GDPR or HIPAA, further strengthening system reliability and trust.
When diversity of applications turns into a nightmare
Having a single IT supplier means there is one party responsible for the entire IT ecosystem. A medical facility doesn’t need to figure out whether company A or B should fix a bug or ask a different vendor to update system A after system B’s upgrade causes it to malfunction. Such disputes can waste valuable time and energy. This responsibility is part of the service agreement, which for larger facilities often includes benefits like reduced reaction times when something goes wrong.
For end users, having one unified system – with a single login, consistent data standards, and a uniform interface across all modules – is a huge relief. Even when different vendors enable data exchange between systems, they rarely offer the same user experience. Vendor lock-in means simpler, cheaper, and faster training for staff. It encourages healthcare providers to keep their IT infrastructure lean, which can actually benefit healthcare workers by reducing complexity.
Finally, managing and controlling multiple IT systems poses a massive challenge. It often forces organizations to hire more IT specialists and complicates data security policies, which become harder to enforce as the number of suppliers grows.
Instead of fearing vendor lock-in, the real concern should be “bad contract lock-in” – choosing the wrong vendor or signing an unfavorable contract for purchasing and implementing HITs. That’s why due diligence is crucial: assessing the company’s competence and growth potential, negotiating strong service and support terms, and building a solid partnership before making a purchase.
This “glass half full” approach helps mitigate the most significant disadvantages of relying on a single IT provider, at least until full interoperability between different IT systems becomes a reality. And that will take several more years.
