Interoperability and Trusted Data Exchange: TEFCA/FHIR Readiness for Connected Health Ecosystems

TEFCA as the “Rule of the Road” for Scaling Connected Health

As connected health ecosystems grow more complex, interoperability is no longer a matter of individual integrations. It is becoming shared infrastructure, governed by common rules rather than bilateral agreements. This is the context in which the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement (TEFCA) matters, and why it is increasingly relevant to architectural planning for 2026. TEFCA is best understood not as a new technology standard, but as a “rule of the road” for medical data exchange. Developed under the stewardship of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, TEFCA establishes a national framework that defines who can exchange health information, for what purposes, and under what obligations. Its goal is to reduce fragmentation by enabling trust-based exchange across networks, rather than relying on bespoke, point-to-point connections.

For connected health vendors, particularly those operating across hospitals, outpatient care, and home monitoring, this shift is material. Scaling beyond a handful of enterprise customers typically requires participation in multi-vendor, multi-setting data flows. Without a shared trust framework, each new integration introduces legal, operational, and governance friction. TEFCA is designed to lower that friction by standardizing expectations around access, consent, accountability, and permitted uses of data.

TEFCA also clarifies the relationship between governance and technology. While FHIR provides the technical mechanism for exchanging structured clinical data, TEFCA provides the trust and policy layer that determines how and when that exchange occurs. In practice, both are required. FHIR without TEFCA scales poorly; TEFCA without FHIR is not implementable.

The timing is significant. End-of-year architectural planning is when organizations decide whether interoperability will remain an afterthought managed through custom work, or become a core design principle. TEFCA signals that the market and regulators are increasingly rewarding the latter approach.

Where Interoperability Projects Break Down in Practice

Despite broad agreement on the importance of interoperability, many connected health initiatives fail to deliver scalable data exchange. The reasons are rarely rooted in standards alone. More often, projects break down at the intersection of technology, governance, and real-world operations.

A persistent challenge is patient identification. Even when systems support the same exchange standards, reliably matching records across organizations remains difficult. Inconsistent demographic data, missing identifiers, and variations in matching logic can fragment longitudinal records. For connected devices and remote platforms, this problem is amplified: data may originate outside traditional registration workflows, increasing the risk of misattribution or duplication.

Consent management is another frequent point of failure. While most systems can technically capture consent, enforcing it consistently across networks is far more complex. Questions arise around granularity (what data can be shared, with whom, and for how long) as well as revocation. In multi-party exchanges, uncertainty about who is responsible for honoring updated consent often leads to conservative data blocking or, conversely, uncontrolled sharing. Data quality issues further erode trust. Structured exchange does not guarantee meaningful exchange. Incomplete fields, inconsistent coding, or poorly maintained metadata reduce the clinical and operational value of shared information. For connected health solutions that depend on continuous data flows, low-quality inputs can undermine analytics, decision support, and downstream reporting.

Finally, accountability gaps surface once systems move beyond pilot scale. When data is delayed, incorrect, or misused, it is often unclear who bears responsibility the source system, the intermediary, or the consuming application. Without clear audit trails and governance processes, these disputes slow adoption and discourage broader participation.

Taken together, these breakdowns illustrate a core lesson: technical connectivity is necessary but insufficient. Interoperability fails when trust, accountability, and operational discipline are not designed alongside APIs. As ecosystems expand, these non-technical factors increasingly determine whether data exchange supports scale or becomes a bottleneck.

Why TEFCA Changes Interoperability Expectations for Connected Health Vendors

TEFCA does more than standardize data exchange; it raises the baseline expectations for how connected health vendors participate in shared ecosystems. For many organizations, this represents a shift from viewing interoperability as a customer-specific requirement to treating it as a core capability tied to trust and scale.

Historically, device and platform vendors often addressed interoperability through bespoke integrations negotiated during procurement. While effective in the short term, this approach does not scale well. Each new connection introduces legal review, custom technical work, and ongoing maintenance. TEFCA reframes this model by emphasizing network participation over one-off connections, with defined roles, responsibilities, and permitted uses of data. For vendors, this has strategic implications. Interoperability can no longer be positioned as an optional feature or deferred to professional services. Under TEFCA-aligned expectations, buyers increasingly assume baseline support for standardized exchange, clear consent handling, and auditable access. Vendors that cannot demonstrate readiness may face friction during enterprise procurement, regardless of clinical functionality. TEFCA also sharpens accountability. Participation in trusted exchange networks implies acceptance of shared governance, including dispute resolution processes and audit obligations. This pushes vendors to formalize internal data governance practices and clarify ownership across product, compliance, and operations teams.

Perhaps most importantly, TEFCA changes the signaling environment. Readiness increasingly functions as a marker of organizational maturity. For providers and payers assembling multi-vendor ecosystems, trust frameworks reduce integration risk and simplify scaling decisions. Vendors that align early position themselves as lower-risk partners in an environment where interoperability is no longer aspirational, but expected.

Practical Readiness Checklist: TEFCA and FHIR for 2026 Planning

Related articles

• Smart Pill Bottles vs. App-Only Reminders: What Improves Adherence?
• Digital Weight Management Platforms + Ozempic: Behavioural ‘Glue’ for GLP-1 Success
• WLSA Recommended Events