Define the operating boundary
A useful definition names the triggering event, required inputs, governing source, accountable owner, decision or action, exception path, evidence retained, and downstream handoff. Buyers should adapt those elements to their own population, jurisdictions, policies, systems, and control model before writing requirements.
The most important distinction is between a label and an operational capability. A provider may document FHIR profile and implementation-guide support while depending on customer-supplied policy, licensed content, third-party data, integration partners, manual review, or services. The demonstration should expose those dependencies rather than hiding them behind a completed interface.
What a demonstration should prove
- Begin with representative source records and a named policy, standard, or controlled rule.
- Show the normal path, an ambiguous case, missing data, an exception, an override, and a material source change.
- Identify who can change rules, who can approve or reject, and how accountability is preserved.
- Trace every output back to inputs, versions, timestamps, user actions, and governing evidence.
- Export the resulting record and reconcile it with downstream systems and retained obligations.
Authority and operating context
FHIR R4 4.0.1
FHIR R4 defines resources, RESTful interactions, data types, terminology bindings, conformance artifacts, security considerations, and exchange patterns. It includes the first normative FHIR content and remains the base for major U.S. implementation guides. Buyers must distinguish base R4 support from support for a named profile or implementation guide. FHIR R4 does not establish production connectivity, semantic quality, authorization design, or conformity for a particular product.
FHIR R5 5.0.0
FHIR R5 is HL7's current overall published release and adds substantial content beyond R4. HL7 labels the release trial use while individual artifacts can have their own standards status. The newest overall release and the dominant regulatory implementation baseline are not the same thing. Buyers need an explicit version-transition plan rather than treating current FHIR as one undifferentiated feature.
US Core 9.0.0
US Core defines U.S. FHIR profiles, interactions, search expectations, and guidance for exchanging common clinical data. Version 9.0.0 remains based on FHIR R4 and incorporates current USCDI-oriented development. US Core version support is more decision-useful than a generic FHIR statement. Current publication, regulatory adoption, and voluntary SVAP availability must be recorded separately.
USCDI v6
USCDI v6 defines an expanded national set of health-data classes and elements intended to support interoperable exchange. Publication, regulatory adoption, and voluntary certification advancement are distinct status records. USCDI version determines the content baseline around which profiles, certification, mapping, and exchange programs are designed. Buyers should demand a version-aware roadmap and evidence for missing or newly added elements.
HTI-1 Final Rule
HTI-1 updates the ONC Health IT Certification Program, adopts USCDI v3 as the baseline from January 1, 2026, revises information-blocking provisions, adds algorithm-transparency requirements, and creates interoperability-focused reporting metrics. HTI-1 connects standards versions to certification and reporting obligations. Product roadmaps must distinguish the adopted baseline from newer voluntarily advanced specifications.
HTI-5 Proposed Rule
HTI-5 proposes changes to the ONC Certification Program, information-blocking regulations, and standards-based API foundations. Its provisions remain proposals as of the seed date. The proposal can inform scenario planning, but vendors and buyers must not describe proposed removals or new API provisions as settled current requirements.
CMS-9115-F
CMS-9115-F requires specified payers to maintain FHIR-based Patient Access APIs for claims, encounter, cost, and maintained clinical data, and establishes other interoperability and provider-notification provisions. The rule created a durable payer API market while leaving data scope, patient authorization, app privacy, testing, operations, and implementation-guide choices as material implementation decisions.
CMS-0057-F
CMS-0057-F expands Patient Access API content and requires Provider Access, Payer-to-Payer, and Prior Authorization APIs for impacted payers, with associated privacy, opt-in or opt-out, metrics, and operational provisions. The rule makes versioned FHIR implementation, bulk data, member permission, endpoint discovery, data lineage, and production operations central payer interoperability requirements.
SMART App Launch 2.2.0
SMART App Launch defines discovery, authorization, scopes, token exchange, and app-launch patterns for applications accessing FHIR APIs from within or outside an EHR workflow. A buyer needs evidence for the exact SMART version, supported launch contexts, scopes, client registration, user and system authorization, and operational token controls.
Bulk Data Access 3.0.0
The Bulk Data Access guide defines asynchronous export patterns for large FHIR datasets, including system-, patient-, and group-level workflows and associated authorization considerations. Bulk export adds job orchestration, file security, filtering, deletion, monitoring, performance, and downstream stewardship requirements that are not answered by a synchronous FHIR API demo.
PDex 2.1.0
PDex profiles FHIR-based exchange of clinical, claims, encounter, and prior-authorization information among payers, patients, and providers and introduces bulk APIs for provider and payer-to-payer access. PDex is central to current payer data-exchange architecture, but buyers must track its US Core dependencies, API role, bulk behavior, member permission, and relationship to separate CARIN and Da Vinci guides.
CARIN Blue Button 2.2.0
CARIN Blue Button defines FHIR profiles for consumer-directed exchange of claims and encounter information using the Common Payer Consumer Data Set. The 2026 release creates a current version-control question for payer and app implementations; support must be stated by version rather than as a generic Blue Button claim.
Operating domains
Standards version and conformance control
Risk that organizations treat a standard as a timeless feature, combine incompatible versions or profiles, misstate certification or conformance, and release interfaces without reproducible evidence for the exact artifacts in use.
Semantic integrity and terminology
Risk that data move successfully but lose or distort meaning because codes, units, value sets, local terms, context, negation, status, and version provenance are incomplete or transformed incorrectly.
Data quality, completeness, and provenance
Risk that exchanged information lacks source, time, status, authorship, context, completeness, or transformation history, preventing the receiving organization from evaluating whether and how to use it.
Public-health and community exchange
Risk that provider, HIE, and public-health systems cannot exchange timely, complete, standardized, and actionable information across routine reporting, surveillance, registry, response, and bidirectional workflows.
Evidence and comparison limits
Official provider documentation can establish product positioning. Provider confirmation can clarify package or availability. Independent observation requires a disclosed scenario, environment, date, inputs, and reproducible result. None of those sources alone establishes buyer-specific legal, clinical, regulatory, quality, or operational fitness.
Buyer questions
- What exact outcome and evidence should FHIR profile and implementation-guide support produce?
- Which source, version, and customer facts govern the workflow?
- Which decisions remain human and who is accountable for them?
- What is native, configured, integrated, service-delivered, or planned?
- How does a changed source affect open and historical records?
Recent changes
ASTP/ONC approves USCDI v6 through the 2026 SVAP — Developers and buyers need separate records for the mandatory baseline, voluntarily advanced version, and version actually deployed in a customer environment.
HL7 publishes US Core 9.0.0 — FHIR platform and integration claims should identify both the base FHIR release and the exact US Core guide version, supported profiles, tests, and production status.
HL7 publishes CARIN Blue Button 2.2.0 — Payer API comparisons should identify the exact guide version and distinguish technical conformance from identity, authorization, source-data quality, and production operations.
HHS releases HTI-5 proposed rule — Organizations may use the proposal for scenarios, but should not record its provisions as binding requirements or treat vendor roadmaps as compliance evidence.