Pillar
An ERP is a suite of standardized modules you buy, built for the back-office problems every company shares: accounting, inventory, purchasing, payroll. Custom software is built around your specific workflows and becomes an asset you own. The practical difference is fit. An ERP asks your team to adopt its processes, while custom software adopts yours. Sort your workflows by which ones would suffer from standardized handling: the commodity ones belong in an ERP, and the ones that win you customers usually justify a custom build.
What post-launch support does a healthcare product need?
More than a standard app, because compliance has to be maintained, not just achieved. Beyond the usual monitoring, bug fixes, and dependency updates, a healthcare product needs audit logs reviewed, access controls kept current as staff change, vendor BAAs tracked as SDKs and cloud services update, and the product adjusted when regulations or a customer's security requirements change. Budget for it the way you budget for the build, using the 15-20% of build cost per year rule of thumb as a floor, and ask any partner who will do the work after launch and at what monthly cost. A team that built the compliance design is the cheapest team to keep it compliant.
Can a development partner help with go-to-market for a healthtech product?
Some can, and it's one of the sharpest dividing lines between a code vendor and a commercialization partner. Go-to-market help in a healthtech context means prioritizing the features a pilot customer will actually pay for, planning the roadmap around the security review and procurement cycle those customers run, and building the product so the first enterprise questionnaire isn't a surprise. Ask any firm what they'd cut from version one and why. A partner with commercialization experience has an opinion grounded in how healthcare buyers buy; a firm that asks for your spec and starts estimating is selling engineering hours, which is fine if that's all you need.
What should a healthcare founder see before development starts?
Four things: a map of where PHI lives and which vendors touch it, wireframes or a clickable prototype of the product, a requirements document with the compliance controls spelled out, and a line-item price against that scope. Together they let you walk a security reviewer, an investor, or a clinical advisor through the product before anyone writes code, which is when changes are cheap. A partner who wants to start coding before producing them is asking you to fund the design decisions in the most expensive phase. Ask for the artifacts by name and expect to own them, usable with any builder, whichever firm you choose.
How does fixed-price development work for a healthcare build?
The price is fixed against a written scope produced in a scoping phase, which for a healthcare product includes the PHI data flow, the vendor chain that needs BAAs, the compliance controls, and the feature list, each priced as a line item. Nothing is fixed before that scope exists, because a number quoted before the compliance work is mapped is a guess. Ask any partner offering a fixed price what document the price is tied to and what happens when you change it. A clear answer (a priced scope, a change process in writing) protects your runway; a vague one means the number will move after you've committed.
Should a healthcare startup use staff augmentation or a development partner?
Staff augmentation works when you already have a technical lead who can design the HIPAA architecture and direct the engineers; a development partner works when you need that leadership supplied along with the build. Augmented engineers do what they're asked, so the question is who decides what to ask, and in a healthcare product that person is also deciding how PHI moves through the system. Founders without a CTO should ask any augmentation vendor who on their side owns the compliance design. If the honest answer is nobody, you're buying hands without a head, and a partner that brings strategy, design, and compliance architecture together is the safer purchase.
Why do app store rejections keep happening after the first launch?
Because every update goes through review again, and the rules move between updates. A new feature adds a permission that needs a purpose string, an SDK update changes what data the app collects and the privacy declaration falls out of sync, a new login provider triggers the sign-in and account-deletion rules, and Apple and Google revise their policies several times a year. A team that submits once a year meets each change as a rejection. A team that submits every month has already met it, which is why we handle submissions inside a development membership rather than as a one-time launch task.
What should I put in the App Review notes?
Everything a stranger needs to reach every feature your description promises: a working demo account on the same environment as the build, with multi-factor turned off; the steps to any feature hidden behind a gesture, setting, or account state; sample data or test instructions for features that depend on a purchase, a paired device, or a region; and a short explanation of anything unusual, like a login exemption you're relying on. Reviewers are strict when they have to hunt and reasonable when they're given a map. Write the notes last, from the final build, and test the demo account on a clean device the morning you submit.
Does my app need an in-app account deletion feature?
Yes, if users can create an account in the app. Apple requires in-app account deletion under guideline 5.1.1(v), and Google Play has a matching account deletion requirement, including a web link where users can request deletion without reinstalling. An email address for deletion requests doesn't satisfy either store, and neither does a deactivate-only option. Build it into account settings from the first version, make it remove the account and its data (with the usual carve-outs for records you're legally required to keep), and tell the user what happens next if the backend takes time. It's a small feature to design in and a predictable rejection to retrofit.
