For today’s healthcare CEO, the question is no longer whether to adopt artificial intelligence, but how. The relentless wave of AI-driven innovation reshapes patient care, operational efficiency, and medical discovery. From predictive diagnostics to automated administrative workflows, the potential of artificial intelligence in healthcare is staggering. Yet, this potential presents one of the most significant strategic decisions a leader will make in this decade: Do we build our own AI capabilities, or do we buy proven solutions from an ever-expanding market of vendors?
That is not a simple procurement choice; it is a foundational decision that will dictate your organization’s agility, competitive positioning, intellectual property strategy, and long-term financial health. Choosing to “build” can offer unparalleled customization and a unique competitive moat, but it demands immense resources, specialized talent, and a high tolerance for risk. Conversely, “buying” offers speed-to-market and access to specialized expertise, but it can lead to vendor lock-in, integration headaches, and a reliance on external innovation cycles.
This article provides a comprehensive framework for healthcare CEOs and leadership teams to dissect the ‘Build vs. Buy’ dilemma. We will examine the strategic imperatives behind each path, explore the burgeoning hybrid model, and offer a concrete decision-making matrix to guide your investment in the future of healthcare Artificial Intelligence.
Ready to build your strategic AI advantage? SPsoft specializes in developing and integrating custom AI solutions, from predictive analytics to medical imaging analysis, that will bring you invaluable insights!
The Undeniable Momentum: Why AI and Healthcare Are a Definitive Pairing
The convergence of AI and healthcare is a present-day reality, driven by a perfect storm of technological advancements and systemic needs. The global market for AI in healthcare is experiencing rapid growth, with some projections estimating a market size of approximately $200 billion by 2030. That isn’t speculative hype; it’s a response to tangible drivers.
| AI in Healthcare Market Growth (Projected) | |
| 2023 Market Size | ~$20 Billion |
| 2030 Projected Size | ~$190 Billion |
| Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) | ~37% |
First, the digitization of health records has created a colossal ocean of data. Electronic Health Records (EHRs), genomic sequences, medical imaging files (PACS), and wearable device data provide the raw material that ML algorithms need to learn and generate insights. Second, cloud computing advancements provide the necessary computational horsepower to process this data at scale, making complex AI models accessible to more than just elite research institutions.
The result is a rapidly expanding portfolio of powerful AI in healthcare examples:
- Medical Imaging Analysis. AI algorithms can now detect signs of cancer, diabetic retinopathy, and stroke from CT scans, MRIs, and X-rays with a speed and accuracy that matches or exceeds that of human specialists.
- Drug Discovery and Development. Pharmaceutical companies are leveraging AI to analyze complex biological data, identify potential drug candidates, and design clinical trials more efficiently, drastically reducing timelines and costs.
- Operational Efficiency. Artificial Intelligence in hospitals is streamlining operations by predicting patient admissions, optimizing operating room schedules, automating revenue cycle management, and reducing administrative burdens on clinical staff.
- Personalized Medicine. AI models can analyze a patient’s genetic makeup, lifestyle, and clinical data to predict their risk of certain diseases and recommend personalized treatment plans, transitioning medicine from a one-size-fits-all model to a highly individualized approach.
Understanding this landscape is the first step for any CEO. The potential for Artificial Intelligence for healthcare to enhance quality, reduce costs, and improve patient outcomes is immense, making the strategic decision of how to acquire these capabilities paramount.
The “Build” Proposition: Forging a Proprietary AI Advantage
Choosing to build an in-house Artificial Intelligence healthcare capability is the strategic equivalent of deciding to manufacture your own engines instead of buying them from a supplier. It is a decision rooted in the belief that this capability will become a core, differentiating asset for your organization. This path is arduous and resource-intensive, but for the proper organization, the rewards can be transformative.
The Strategic Rationale for Building
CEOs should consider the “build” path when the AI solution is inextricably linked to their organization’s unique value proposition. The primary drivers include:
- Core Competitive Advantage. If the AI application you envision will fundamentally separate you from competitors — for instance, a proprietary diagnostic algorithm for a specific rare disease your institution specializes in — then owning the intellectual property (IP) is non-negotiable.
- Unique and Proprietary Data. The most powerful AI models are trained on vast, high-quality, and unique datasets. If your healthcare system has spent decades accumulating a specific type of curated clinical, genomic, or imaging data, building a custom model is the only way to leverage that priceless asset fully.
- Deep Integration and Workflow Customization: Off-the-shelf solutions are designed for the 80% majority. If your clinical workflows or legacy IT systems are highly specialized, building a solution from scratch may be the only way to achieve seamless integration without disrupting established, effective processes.
- Long-Term Control and Agility. Building gives you complete control over the development roadmap. You can pivot, update, and retrain your models based on new research, evolving patient populations, and changing regulatory landscapes without being dependent on a vendor’s priorities or timeline.
The Demands of the Build Path
Embarking on this journey requires a clear-eyed understanding of the commitment.
- Talent Acquisition and Retention. The most significant challenge is assembling and retaining a multidisciplinary team. That isn’t just about hiring data scientists; it requires ML engineers, clinical informaticists who can bridge the gap between data and patient care, data engineers, and project managers fluent in both medicine and technology. The competition for this talent is fierce.
- Infrastructure Investment. Building requires a robust technical infrastructure, whether on-premise or in the cloud. That includes data storage, high-performance computing resources (GPUs), and a sophisticated MLOps (Machine Learning Operations) platform to manage the entire lifecycle of model development, deployment, and monitoring.
- Data Governance and Preparation. Raw clinical data is notoriously messy. A significant portion of any “build” project (often up to 80% of the effort) is spent on cleaning, normalizing, labeling, and securing data to make it usable for training, all while adhering to strict HIPAA and privacy regulations.
- Regulatory and Validation Hurdles. When you build a clinical AI tool, you own the entire burden of proof for its safety and efficacy. It means navigating the complex FDA approval pathways for Software as a Medical Device (SaMD), conducting rigorous clinical validation studies, and establishing post-market surveillance.
Who Is the Ideal “Build” Candidate?
The “build” strategy is best suited for large, well-resourced organizations with a strong academic or research focus. Consider major academic medical centers, large integrated delivery networks (IDNs), pharmaceutical giants, and specialized research institutes that possess the unique data, capital, and long-term vision necessary to bring such a monumental project to fruition.
The “Buy” Proposition: Accelerating AI Adoption Through Partnership
For the majority of healthcare organizations, the “build” path is not feasible or strategically sensible. The “buy” proposition offers a more direct and often faster route to harnessing the power of artificial intelligence in healthcare. That involves purchasing or licensing solutions from specialized vendors who have already invested time and capital in developing, validating, and scaling AI products.
The Strategic Rationale for Buying
The “buy” decision is typically driven by pragmatism, speed, and a desire to focus on core competencies — delivering patient care. The key differences between the “Build” and “Buy” approaches are stark.
| Factor | Build (In-House Development) | Buy (Vendor Solution) |
|---|---|---|
| Speed to Market | 🐢 Slow (Years) | 🚀 Fast (Months) |
| Upfront Cost | 💰💰💰 Very High (CapEx) | 💰 Low to Medium (OpEx) |
| Total Cost of Ownership | Potentially lower over long term | Predictable, but perpetual |
| Customization | ✅ Complete | ❌ Limited to vendor’s offering |
| Competitive Advantage | Potentially unique, high | Low (competitors can buy too) |
| Control & IP | Full ownership | None (vendor-owned) |
| Risk | High (project failure, talent) | Lower (proven solution) |
| Resource Strain | Intense (talent, infrastructure) | Moderate (implementation) |
| Regulatory Burden | Fully owned by you | Primarily owned by vendor |
- Speed to Value. The most compelling reason to buy is speed. A vendor solution can often be implemented in months, not years, allowing an organization to start realizing benefits — whether improved diagnostic accuracy or reduced administrative costs — almost immediately.
- Access to World-Class Expertise. AI vendors live and breathe their specific niche. A company focused solely on AI for stroke detection will have a depth of expertise and a quality of algorithm that would be nearly impossible for a single hospital to replicate. You are buying their focused R&D.
- Cost Predictability and Lower Upfront Investment. Buying, primarily through a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) model, transforms a massive, risky capital expenditure into a predictable operational expense. That makes it far easier to budget for and mitigate the investment risk.
- Reduced Internal Burden. Buying an external solution frees your internal IT and clinical teams to focus on implementation and adoption rather than development and maintenance. The vendor handles the complexities of model updates, bug fixes, and infrastructure management.
- Proven Regulatory Clearance. Reputable vendors have already navigated the labyrinth of FDA or other regulatory body approvals. That transfers a significant portion of the compliance and validation burden from your organization to the vendor.
Navigating the Vendor Landscape and Its Challenges
The market for AI application solutions in the healthcare sector is crowded and complex. The “buy” path comes with its own set of risks that CEOs must mitigate.
- Vendor Lock-In. Integrating a vendor’s solution deeply into your EHR and clinical workflows can make it difficult and costly to switch to a different provider in the future, even if you become dissatisfied with the product or pricing.
- The “Black Box” Problem. Many commercial AI models are proprietary, meaning you may not have full transparency into how they work. That can be a challenge for clinical validation and for explaining an AI-driven recommendation to a physician or patient.
- Integration and Interoperability. A vendor’s marketing claims of “seamless integration” often fall short in the harsh reality of complex hospital IT environments. Ensuring a new tool works seamlessly with your existing EHR (such as Epic or Cerner), PACS, and other systems is a critical and often underestimated challenge. Standards like HL7 FHIR are helping, but are not yet a panacea.
- Data Security and Governance. When you buy, you are entrusting a third party with access to your most sensitive asset: patient data. Rigorous due diligence on the vendor’s security protocols, data handling policies, and HIPAA compliance is essential.
Who Is the Ideal “Buy” Candidate?
The “buy” strategy is the default and most logical choice for the vast majority of healthcare organizations. That includes community hospitals, specialty clinics, physician groups, and even larger health systems that need to solve a well-defined, common problem (e.g., AI-powered medical coding, patient scheduling bots) and want to do so quickly and efficiently.
The Hybrid Approach: The Emerging Strategic Sweet Spot
Increasingly, the ‘Build vs. Buy’ dilemma is proving to be a false dichotomy. The most forward-thinking organizations are adopting a hybrid strategy, creating a sophisticated ecosystem that blends the best of both worlds. This nuanced approach recognizes that not all AI in health care applications are created equal.
The hybrid model operates on a principle of strategic allocation:
- BUY Foundational Platforms and Commodity Tools. Purchase best-in-class solutions for everyday, non-differentiating problems. That includes tools for revenue cycle management, administrative automation, or general-purpose radiology triage. It also involves leveraging the powerful AI/ML platforms offered by major cloud providers, such as Google Cloud, AWS, and Microsoft Azure. These platforms provide the infrastructure, pre-trained models, and MLOps tools that can serve as a foundation.
- BUILD Highly Specific, Differentiating Applications. Focus your precious in-house talent and resources on building a small number of AI applications that are truly unique to your institution. These are the “crown jewel” projects that leverage your proprietary data and deep clinical expertise to create a lasting competitive advantage.
For example, a hospital network could buy an AI solution to optimize its OR scheduling but build a custom model to predict sepsis risk based on its unique patient population data drawn from its EHR. This approach allows the organization to achieve quick wins and operational efficiencies through commercial products while investing in long-term, high-impact innovation.
Implementing a hybrid strategy requires establishing an internal “AI Center of Excellence” or a similar governance body to oversee the implementation. This team is responsible for evaluating every potential AI application in the healthcare sector, deciding whether to build or buy, managing vendor relationships, and ensuring that all AI tools — regardless of their origin — are implemented safely, ethically, and effectively within the organization’s clinical and IT framework.
A CEO’s Decision Framework for Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
To move from theory to action, CEOs need a structured framework for evaluating each AI opportunity. Before committing significant capital, every proposed AI initiative should be pressure-tested against the following seven critical questions.
Question of Strategic Core: Is this AI capability fundamental to our mission and competitive identity?
- Lean Build: If the answer is a resounding “yes,” and this tool will become a cornerstone of your brand and clinical excellence for the next decade, building is the only way to ensure ownership and control.
- Lean Buy: If the AI addresses an operational or clinical need that is important but not a core differentiator (i.e., your competitors are solving it the same way), buying a best-in-class solution is more efficient.
Question of Data Uniqueness: Do we possess a proprietary data asset that gives us a clear and undeniable edge?
- Lean Build: If you have a unique, large-scale, and well-curated dataset that no vendor could replicate, building is the best way to capitalize on this invaluable asset.
- Lean Buy: If the AI model can be trained effectively on publicly available or commonly available clinical data, a vendor has already done so at a greater scale than you can.
Question of In-House Resources: Do we realistically have (or can we acquire and retain) the necessary talent, capital, and leadership focus?
- Lean Buy: Be brutally honest here. If you lack a critical mass of AI talent, a sufficient budget for a multi-year R&D effort, and executive sponsorship, buying is the safer, more pragmatic path.
- Lean Build: Only proceed if you can commit to building a world-class team and providing them with the resources and autonomy to succeed.
Question of Time-to-Value: How quickly do we need to see the ROI?
- Lean Buy: If there is urgent pressure to solve a problem and demonstrate ROI within 6-12 months, buying an existing solution is your only viable option.
- Lean Build: The build path is a long-term investment. The ROI horizon is typically measured in years, not months.
Question of Total Cost of Ownership (TCO): What is the long-term financial picture?
- Analysis Required: A detailed financial model is required. “Build” has high upfront costs but potentially lower long-term costs (no subscription fees). “Buy” has lower upfront costs but perpetual subscription fees that can escalate over time. Factor in maintenance, upgrades, and support for both scenarios.
Question of Regulatory and Compliance: Are we prepared to own the entire validation and liability lifecycle?
- Lean Buy: If your organization’s legal and regulatory teams are not equipped to handle the complexities of SaMD submissions and post-market surveillance, leveraging a vendor who has already cleared these hurdles is a massive advantage.
- Lean Build: This path is for organizations with deep experience in clinical trials, regulatory affairs, and quality management systems.
Question of Integration and Ecosystem: How will this solution fit into our existing digital infrastructure?
- Analysis Required: Sometimes a vendor solution with pre-built EHR integrations (e.g., an app in Epic’s App Orchard) is far less disruptive than trying to build custom integrations. Evaluate the tecр debt and integration complexity for both paths. A “build” decision can be right strategically but wrong technically if it can’t be integrated effectively.
Conclusion: Leading Beyond the Dilemma
The ‘Build vs. Buy’ decision for artificial intelligence in healthcare is not a one-time choice but an ongoing strategic discipline. The right answer for one application may be the wrong answer for another. For the modern healthcare CEO, the ultimate goal is not just to implement AI but to cultivate an “AI-ready” organization — one that is agile, data-driven, and relentlessly focused on leveraging technology to serve its core mission of patient care.
The most successful leaders will be those who resist the allure of a single, simple answer. They will adopt the hybrid model, utilizing a rigorous decision-making framework to determine where to partner for speed and efficiency, and where to invest deeply to establish a truly unique and lasting advantage. By navigating this dilemma with strategic foresight, you can ensure your organization not only survives the AI revolution but also leads it, defining the future of a more intelligent, efficient, and equitable AI in health care ecosystem.
One of the most immediate ROI opportunities in healthcare AI is tackling administrative burden. We design and deploy secure, HIPAA-compliant voice AI solutions that automate your clinical documentation!
FAQ
How do we decide between building a proprietary AI and buying a ready-made solution?
There is no single answer; the decision must be driven by strategy. The choice hinges on whether the AI capability is a core competitive differentiator for your organization. You should also evaluate the uniqueness of your data, your in-house technical talent, your budget for risk and R&D, and the speed at which you need to generate value. A solution for a common operational problem strongly leans towards ‘buy,’ while a tool leveraging unique clinical data to create a market advantage points towards ‘build.’
When is building our own AI solution a non-negotiable?
Building becomes non-negotiable when the AI capability itself is your core competitive advantage and leverages a unique, proprietary dataset your organization has spent years curating. If owning the intellectual property (IP) is fundamental to your long-term market position and the solution needs deep, custom integration with your specific workflows, then the strategic imperative to build outweighs the significant investment in time, talent, and capital. This path is designed to create a truly inimitable asset.
What are the biggest red flags that tell us we should definitely buy an AI solution?
The biggest red flags indicating a purchase are a lack of in-house AI talent, an urgent need to solve a problem quickly (within months, not years), and a limited budget for a high-risk R&D project. If the problem you’re solving is common across the industry, such as medical coding automation or patient scheduling, a vendor has likely already perfected a solution at scale. Trying to reinvent that wheel is strategically and financially inefficient for your organization.
Beyond the price tag, how should we compare the long-term costs of building vs. buying?
You must analyze the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). For a ‘build’ project, TCO includes salaries for a dedicated team, infrastructure maintenance, and ongoing model retraining. It’s a significant upfront capital expense with sustained operational costs. For a ‘buy’ solution, TCO includes the perpetual subscription fees, implementation and training costs, and potential price hikes at renewal. That shifts a considerable capital risk to a predictable, but ongoing, operational expense that can grow over time.
What is the biggest risk in the ‘buy’ approach, and how can we mitigate it?
The single biggest risk when buying is vendor lock-in. Once a third-party solution is deeply integrated into your EHR and clinical workflows, switching to another vendor can be prohibitively complex and expensive. To mitigate this, prioritize solutions built on open standards, such as HL7 FHIR, for data interoperability, and negotiate contract terms that guarantee your ownership and the ability to extract your data if you terminate the service in the future.
What does a ‘hybrid’ AI strategy look like in a real-world hospital setting?
A hybrid strategy allows you to do both. For example, a hospital might buy a proven, off-the-shelf AI tool to optimize its operating room schedules for quick efficiency gains. At the same time, its in-house data science team could build a highly specialized predictive model that uses the hospital’s unique patient admission data to identify individuals at high risk for sepsis. That balances immediate ROI from vendors with long-term, strategic innovation.
As a CEO, what is the most critical first step before committing to an AI investment?
The most critical first step is to establish a cross-functional AI governance committee that includes clinical, technical, operational, and financial leaders. Their first task is not to choose a tech, but to clearly define the specific, high-value business or clinical problem you are trying to solve. They must confirm how solving it aligns with the organization’s overarching strategic goals. Without this clarity, any AI investment risks becoming a solution in search of a problem.
