Healthcare MVP Development: Top Mistakes to Avoid for Successful Product Launch

A minimum viable product (MVP) is a product development approach that allows startups to realize their potential. This method has demonstrated excellent results in social media, marketplaces, and entertaining ventures (like Instagram, Amazon, or Spotify). Currently, one of the most profitable spheres of startuping is healthcare. According to Crunchbase, this industry still accounts for over 50% of U.S. Series A funding in 2024.

However, developing an MVP healthcare product in today’s highly competitive market is no easy task. There are plenty of risk factors that can be easily forgotten or underestimated. Moreover, MVP development in this niche is particularly challenging due to regulatory requirements, data sensitivity, and scalability demands.

Therefore, we at Devtorium, with hands-on experience in healthcare MVP development, want to share practical advice for minimizing those risks. This blog will outline critical mistakes and explain how to avoid them with the right strategies and expert advice.

Mistake 1: Mishandling Healthcare Data

Problem: Healthcare MVPs often manage enormous volumes of data like patient health records, diagnostic information, treatment histories, etc.

Thus, improperly designed data systems can lead to severe problems. Your MVP can be limited in delivering actionable patient insights and predictive analytics. Moreover, failure to organize data effectively causes slow performance, duplication of effort, or even loss of critical information. Healthcare MVP must conform with the FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource) standard developed by HL7 (the Health Level 7 standards organization). This standard lets the exchange of healthcare e-data between different systems securely and privately.

Teams without domain expertise may also underestimate data interoperability challenges like integrating with existing electronic health records (EHRs).

Solution: Our experts recommend implementing FHIR-compliant encryption, as prioritizing this standard will ensure robust data protection while supporting seamless interoperability in healthcare systems. Additionally, you can try to involve data scientists in MVP development, as they can provide your system with tools like advanced analytics, predictive modeling, and personalized recommendations.

Mistake 2: Neglecting Compliance Requirements

Problem: Some startups underestimate the importance of adhering to regulatory frameworks, as they think they can address compliance after the MVP is live. They focus on building features and functionalities but often overlook the need to comply with regulations for handling sensitive data, such as personal health information (PHI). Failing to integrate compliance like HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), or similar ones from the start can lead to costly delays, fines, or product rejection. Regulations aren’t optional— they are foundational in healthcare MVPs.

Solution: Firstly, you should integrate compliance early in MVP development, as retrofitting it into an existing product can be costly and inefficient. Secondly, it is better to maintain detailed records of how your MVP collects, processes, and stores data. Regulatory audits often require transparent documentation. Last, the most critical point is implementing secure storage, encryption protocols, and a controlled access system. Collaborating with a tech partner experienced in healthcare compliance can significantly reduce risks and ensure your MVP is ready for market.

Mistake 3: Imbalance between Simplicity and Scalability

Problem: The most challenging task while creating MVP is to find the right balance between a functional and a scalable foundation for the project. Typically, inexperienced companies either overload the MVP with too many features or focus solely on short-term goals without planning for future product expansion. These risks occur when the team does not focus on the main goals and their development. Both these issues cause high chances of failure due to poor user experience, bugs, and wasted time and money.

Solution: To prevent these extremes, you should design the MVP simple enough to launch quickly but robust enough to accommodate future growth. Also, it would help if you avoided “scope creep” by identifying the MVP’s minimum viable goals. At the same time, you better work with a technical team experienced in designing scalable architectures such as cloud-based infrastructures. We advise using cloud-based infrastructures intended for healthcare, like AWS HealthLake or Microsoft Azure, to manage large-scale data.

Mistake 4: Ignoring User Feedback, Testing, and Iteration

Problem: Many startups underestimate the importance of testing and iteration in MVP development, believing that users will not mention bugs and technical issues since it’s “just an MVP.” They often launch their product without proper validation channels and treat the MVP as a one-time release rather than an iterative process. This mindset leads to poor first impressions, decreased user engagement, and missed opportunities. When teams fail to establish proper feedback mechanisms, they risk losing users permanently.

Solution: Our experts advise implementing a comprehensive testing strategy before launch. It suggests establishing clear feedback channels such as in-app surveys, customer interviews, and email questionnaires to collect user insights systematically. Regular iteration based on real user insights is the key to creating a successful MVP that meets user needs.

Mistake 5: Choosing the Wrong Development Team

Problem: Building an MVP is a time-sensitive and resource-intensive process, especially in the healthcare industry, where compliance, scalability, and precision are critical. That’s why hiring an inexperienced or lacking domain expertise team is not a good idea, even though they propose low prices for complex development services. 

Hiring the wrong team can lead to costly delays, sub-optimal results, and technical debt. While some businesses try to assemble teams through freelancer platforms, managing scattered individuals can result in miscommunication and fragmented development efforts. This risk is amplified for healthcare MVPs, as the lack of expertise in regulatory requirements like HIPAA or GDPR can jeopardize the project entirely.

Solution: To ensure effective MVP development, partner with a specialized company that understands the healthcare sector. Look for a team with a proven track record of building compliant, scalable solutions for similar industries. Evaluate their portfolio to be certain of compatibility with your project’s goals. Working with experienced professionals gives you access to a full-cycle service that covers discovery, prototyping, design, development, and testing.

Conclusion: How to Make a Successful MVP Launch

Developing an MVP requires careful planning and expertise in the highly regulated healthcare industries. You can create a product that paves the way for long-term success by avoiding common pitfalls.

Our team has deep domain expertise in MVP development for healthcare to deliver high-quality solutions. From compliance and scalability to data security and user-focused design, we’re here to guide you through every stage of the MVP process.

Ready to take the first step toward building a successful MVP? Contact our team for a free consultation and receive personalized advice from our experts.

AI Law Regulations in EU & US

Every time new technologies enter our lives, we must become pioneers and adapt to the new rules of the game. AI is not an exception. This innovation has already made its way into every sphere, from entertainment to science. Moreover, there are countless ways to use AI in real-life business. However, AI cannot remain unregulated without specific frameworks and rules. If such a powerful tool appears in the wrong hands, it can be used for selfish or harmful purposes.

The prospect of AI being used in deep fakes, fraud, and theft of personal data or intellectual property is not just concerning but an urgent issue. The Center for AI Crime reports a staggering 1,265% increase in phishing emails and a nearly 1,000% rise in credential phishing in the year following the launch of ChatGPT. This highlights the urgent need for AI regulation.

In response, significant regions such as Europe and the US have started developing principles regulating AI to protect their citizens, companies, and institutions while maintaining technological development and investment. The regulations contain critical nuances that must be considered when developing or implementing AI technologies. In this blog, we will explore and compare European and American AI regulations.

The EU AI Regulation: AI Act

Regulation on a European approach for AI

The AI Act by the European Union is the first global and comprehensive legal framework for AI regulation. Basically, it is a set of measures aimed at ensuring the safety of AI systems in Europe. The European Parliament approved the AI Act in March 2024, followed by the EU Council – in May 2024. Although the act will fully take effect 24 months after publication, several sections will become applicable in December 2024, primarily focusing on privacy protection.

In general, this act is similar to the GDPR — the EU’s regulation on data privacy — in many respects. For example, both cover the same group of people — all residents within the EU. Moreover, even if a company or developer of an AI system is abroad, if their AI software is designed for the European market, they must comply with the AI Act. The regulation will also affect distributors of AI technologies in all 27 EU member states, regardless of where they are based.

The risk-based approach of the AI Act is comparable to the GDPR’s. It divides AI systems into four risk categories:

  • The minimal (or no) risk category is not regulated by the act (e.g., AI spam filters).
  • Limited-risk AI systems must follow transparency obligations (e.g., users must be informed when interacting with AI chatbots).
  • High-risk AI systems are strictly regulated by the act (e.g., using AI systems to enhance critical infrastructure).
  • Unacceptable risk is prohibited (e.g., biometric categorization).

Non-compliance with certain AI practices can result in fines of up to 35 million EUR or 7% of a company’s annual turnover.

The US AI Regulation: Executive Order on AI

Although the United States leads the world in AI investments (61% of total global funding for AI start-ups goes to US companies), its process for creating AI legislation is slower and more disorganized than the EU’s. There is no approved Congress policy on AI systems regulation in the US for now. However, the White House issued an Executive Order (EO) on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in October 2023. It sets federal guidelines and strategies for fairness, transparency, and accountability for AI systems. As with the AI Act, the EO aims to balance AI innovation with responsible development. 

The AI Executive Order also focuses on guiding federal agencies in implementing AI systems and outlines a series of time-bound tasks for execution. It directs federal agencies to develop responsible AI governance frameworks. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) leads this effort by setting technical standards through its AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF). This framework will shape future guidelines while aligning with industry-specific regulations. Federal funding priorities further emphasize AI research and development (R&D) to advance these initiatives.

The most important thing to mention about EO is that it does not have the same enforcement power as a law. Instead, EO should be viewed as a preparatory stage of AI regulation, and its recommendations should be gradually implemented if you plan to work in the US market. For example, any AI software development company should start conducting audits, assessments, and other practices to ensure their safe approach.

Comparison Table

Legal Force:

The AI Act will become a binding law across all EU member states once 24 months pass. After that, mandatory compliance will be required from everyone providing AI systems in this region. In contrast, the US Executive Order has less legal force. It sets essential guidelines for federal agencies, but it lacks the binding legal authority of a law passed by Congress. The EO’s enforcement is limited to federal government activities and impacts the private sector less. Thus, even a change of president can provoke future revocation.

Regulatory Approach:

The AI Act applies to all AI systems, categorizing them  from unacceptable to minimal risk to ensure that every AI system across industries falls under specific regulations. The US OE focuses on sector-specific regulations, targeting high-impact industries like healthcare, finance, and defense. While this approach fosters innovation, it may lead to inconsistent risk management across sectors.

Data Privacy:

The AI Act uses practices from GDPR to enforce strict rules around data processing, privacy, and algorithm transparency. The US privacy regulations remain fragmented, with state-level laws such as the CCPA and BIPA applying at the state level but no federal AI-specific privacy law.

Ethical Guidelines:

The EU AI Act emphasizes ethical AI development, focusing on fairness, non-discrimination, and transparency. These principles are embedded within the legislation. The US Executive Order promotes similar values but through non-binding recommendations rather than legal mandates.

Support for Innovation:

The EU AI Act aims to balance strict regulation with promoting innovation, offering AI research and development incentives within an ethical framework. These actions help foster AI innovation while ensuring public safety. The US supports innovation through federal funding and AI research initiatives, but companies have more flexibility to self-regulate and innovate without the stringent compliance measures seen in the EU.

Conclusion: Challenges of Current AI Regulations

The EU and the US face global challenges in balancing AI regulation and innovation. The EU AI Act imposes numerous restrictions that limit the possibility of developing revolutionary AI software, while the US EO, although offering more flexibility and encouraging innovation, lacks comprehensive regulations. The evolving nature of AI technology makes it difficult for regulations to keep pace, and businesses must navigate complex compliance requirements across different regions. However, for developers working on projects, adhering to these regulations is crucial to avoid legal risks and ensure the ethical use of AI.

At Devtorium, we help businesses navigate these challenges by ensuring compliance with the necessary AI regulations. Our team can guarantee that your AI solutions meet both EU and US standards, allowing you to focus on innovation. For more details, contact us today and let Devtorium’s experts guide your AI development toward full regulatory compliance.

If you want to learn more about our other services, check out more articles on our website:

cookie-image
cookie-image-mobile

Our website uses cookies

We use cookies and share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners who may combine it with other information that you’ve provided them.