Healthcare digitisation usually becomes visible through the applications people interact with: patient portals, telehealth platforms, digital prescriptions and, increasingly, digital health wallets. But the interface is rarely the difficult part.
In March 2026, the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research and Temasek Foundation launched a three-year initiative to help ASEAN Member States move from paper-based health records towards secure, interoperable digital health wallets. The programme plans to use global standards including HL7 FHIR and the International Patient Summary so essential health information can move more consistently between systems. That initiative represents something bigger than another healthcare app.
It raises a question that Southeast Asia’s healthtech ecosystem will increasingly have to answer: Can health information remain useful when it moves beyond the system, provider or country where it was originally created?
Digital health is becoming infrastructure
Digital health is no longer confined to individual hospital transformation projects. Globally, WHO reported in 2026 that 129 Member States have national digital health strategies. Its Global Digital Health Certification Network already serves 1.8 billion people across 80 countries.
The broader South-East Asia region is moving in the same direction. WHO says at least 80 per cent of countries in its South-East Asia Region have drafted or completed national digital health strategies, with interoperability among the areas these strategies are intended to strengthen.
As this infrastructure expands, simply digitising records becomes less of a differentiator. The harder problem becomes making those records usable outside the system that created them.
Imagine a traveller receives treatment in one country and later needs care elsewhere. A digital wallet may be capable of presenting a medication, allergy, diagnosis or laboratory result to the second provider. Technically delivering that information is one problem. Making sure the second system understands it correctly is another.
Moving data is not the same as understanding it
Healthcare interoperability is often discussed as an API problem. Connect System A to System B. Exchange information using FHIR. Validate the payload. The integration works.
Except healthcare data carries meaning as well as structure. One hospital may represent a laboratory observation using an international terminology. Another may use a local code created years ago. Medication names can differ. Units can vary. Clinical concepts can be recorded at different levels of specificity.
The receiving platform might therefore successfully receive the data while still being unable to use it reliably. That distinction becomes especially important when health information starts travelling between organisations and eventually across borders.
Also Read: Why Southeast Asia’s next healthtech winners will be built around healthcare workflows, not just AI
FHIR provides a standard way to structure and exchange healthcare information, but consistent exchange does not automatically guarantee consistent interpretation. That is why capabilities such as healthcare terminology services become relevant: clinical vocabularies, mappings and value sets help different systems interpret the same underlying concepts consistently. For regional digital health infrastructure, semantic consistency may prove just as important as connectivity.
Standards are a foundation, not a finished solution
The ASEAN digital health wallet initiative’s use of HL7 FHIR and the International Patient Summary is significant because common standards reduce the number of proprietary formats each participant needs to understand. But adopting a standard does not remove every interoperability challenge.
Healthcare systems still have to resolve questions around patient identity, consent, terminology, data quality, security, access permissions and the clinical context surrounding a record.
There is also a regional dimension. Southeast Asia is not one healthcare market with a common technology stack. Countries differ in digital maturity, healthcare delivery models, public and private sector participation, regulation and existing infrastructure. Even within one country, a modern cloud platform may need to exchange information with hospital systems that were designed years earlier for very different purposes.
This means regional interoperability cannot simply mean making every participant use identical software. A more realistic goal is enabling different systems to communicate through shared standards while preserving the meaning, trust and context of the information being exchanged.
This changes how healthtech products should be designed
For healthtech founders, interoperability is easy to postpone. An early product may integrate with one hospital, one laboratory or one device ecosystem. At that stage, a tightly coupled integration can appear sufficient.
The architecture starts to matter differently once the product expands. A second healthcare provider may use another EHR. A new market may require different consent rules. Clinical terminology may change. A partner may expose FHIR APIs while another still depends on older interfaces.
If these differences are handled individually inside the core product, every expansion adds another layer of dependency. That is why interoperability increasingly needs to be treated as product architecture rather than a later integration task.
Also Read: Vietnam’s healthtech boom has a talent problem nobody is talking about
A scalable healthtech platform should be able to separate its core product logic from the systems around it. Identity, consent, terminology mapping, API management, auditability and data transformation need clear boundaries.
The objective is not to predict every future integration. It is to avoid designing a product where every new integration requires rebuilding the foundation.
Portability also creates a trust problem
Technical interoperability alone will not determine whether portable health records work. Healthcare data is unusually sensitive. Giving individuals greater control over their information also creates questions about authentication, consent, revocation, data provenance and who should be permitted to access what.
A clinically useful record needs to be more than portable. A receiving healthcare organisation needs confidence about where the information came from, whether it has changed and whether the person presenting it is authorised to do so. That makes trust architecture inseparable from interoperability architecture.
This is particularly important for systems intended to operate across multiple organisations or jurisdictions. The further health data travels from its original environment, the more important identity, provenance and governance become.
The opportunity is larger than the wallet
Digital health wallets may eventually become one visible layer of Southeast Asia’s healthcare infrastructure. Their deeper significance is what must exist underneath them.
For a patient’s essential health information to travel with them, hospitals, government platforms, healthtech products and other healthcare systems need ways to exchange data without losing its meaning or trustworthiness. That will not happen because every organisation adopts the same application. It will happen through standards, governance and architectures that allow different applications to participate in the same healthcare ecosystem.
For Southeast Asian healthtech companies, this changes the strategic question. The next generation of regional healthcare products will not only need to ask, “Can our software work in another market?” They will increasingly need to ask: “Can our product become part of a healthcare system where information needs to move beyond us?”
That may ultimately be the more important interoperability test.
—
Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of e27.
Join us on WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, X, and LinkedIn to stay connected.
The post Southeast Asia is digitising health records. Making them portable is the harder problem appeared first on e27.