Lab integration in specialty care: choosing the right strategy for your product

Lab data sits at the center of many modern healthtech products, but for different reasons across all audiences. For specialty care platforms, they often inform clinical decisions, care plan adjustments, and longitudinal tracking of patient outcomes. For longevity-focused products, labs become even more central, acting as recurring signals to measure baselines, detect early risk, and guide proactive interventions over time.

In both cases, lab data is not just a record: it is an active input into how the product delivers value. And yet, many teams struggle because they commit too early to the wrong integration strategy. Lab integration is often treated as a single problem.

Teams talk about “integrating labs” as if it were one decision with one correct technical answer. In practice, that shorthand hides very different product needs, timelines, and tradeoffs.

This article is designed to help you make that choice more deliberately, understanding the unique features of your healthcare solution.

Two different problems hidden under “lab integration”

“Lab integration” is often treated as a single problem, but it usually hides two fundamentally different needs.

Problem A: running lab workflows

This is about actively running lab workflows:

• Ordering lab tests
• Coordinating scheduling and logistics
• Tracking operational status
• Delivering structured results back into the product in a predictable way

Products solving this problem are deeply involved in care delivery. They need reliability, clear states, and tight feedback loops because clinicians and patients depend on them in real time.

Problem B: reconstructing patient history

This is about what already happened:

• Aggregating lab results across multiple labs
• Filling gaps in patient records
• Dealing with incomplete or fragmented data
• Supporting retrospective analysis and longitudinal views

Here, the focus is breadth rather than control. Coverage matters more than operational precision, and teams must accept variability in data quality and structure.

Trying to solve both problems with a single integration approach usually leads to compromises on both sides. Teams either overload an operational workflow with unreliable historical data or attempt to run patient-facing workflows on top of brittle, slow-moving aggregations.

Understanding which problem you are solving first is the foundation for every architectural decision that follows.

Wondering what’s the best approach for your integrations?
We have a team of specialists that can help you out.

Lab APIs and workflow-first integrations

Lab APIs are designed for products that want to actively run the lab workflow. They provide primitives for ordering tests, coordinating logistics, and receiving results in a structured, machine-readable format. The strength of this approach is control. The product becomes the system of record for what was ordered, when it was collected, and how results flow back to clinicians and patients.

This model works especially well when:

• Lab testing is a recurring part of care delivery
• Patient experience and operational clarity matter
• The product needs near-real-time updates and predictable states

The tradeoff is scope. Most lab APIs are not designed to be universal historical data sources. Coverage is limited to supported labs and to tests ordered through the platform, with historical access often constrained.

A concrete example of this model is Junction. Junction focuses on enabling end-to-end lab workflows, from ordering and scheduling to delivering structured lab results back into the product. That is where it provides the most value.

Other platforms in this space exist, such as Rupa Health, which also emphasizes lab ordering and coordination, particularly in functional and specialty medicine contexts.

What differentiates Junction is the consistency and reliability of its workflow abstraction. It is optimized for teams that want to make lab testing a first-class, operational part of their product. Its limitations around historical data access are real, but they are also intentional. Junction is not trying to be a longitudinal data lake, but a workflow engine.

For a deeper dive into how this works in practice, we have already explored this model in a previous article on leveraging Junction to integrate with labs.

When to go for an HIE

Health Information Exchanges solve a different problem.

At a conceptual level, an HIE exists to aggregate and share clinical data across organizations and networks. This makes them attractive when the primary goal is historical coverage rather than operational execution.

HIE-based approaches excel when teams need:

• Access to lab results from multiple labs and providers
• Retrospective patient context
• Broader clinical data beyond labs, such as encounters or medications

In the U.S. ecosystem, this category includes platforms like Health Gorilla, Zus Health, and Particle Health.

The tradeoffs are important to plan for. Data often arrives with inconsistent structure, variable completeness, and limited guarantees around timeliness. Engineering teams must invest in normalization, reconciliation, and error handling.

From a product perspective, this introduces risk, especially in early-stage or MVP scenarios where teams need fast iteration and predictable behavior. For specialty care products, HIEs are powerful when used intentionally. They are rarely a drop-in replacement for workflow-driven lab integrations, but they can be the right choice when historical context is the primary driver of value.

The architecture most mature products go with

As products evolve, many teams realize that neither approach fully replaces the other. 

Mature architectures often separate concerns:

• A lab API handles forward-looking, operational workflows where control and reliability are critical.
• An HIE or aggregator supports retrospective and longitudinal views where coverage matters more than precision.

This separation allows teams to avoid overloading a single integration with conflicting responsibilities. Operational workflows remain clean and predictable, while historical data is treated as context rather than ground truth.

The key is not to adopt a hybrid architecture prematurely, but to recognize when product requirements have clearly diverged. Teams that do this intentionally tend to move faster and incur less long-term complexity.

A decision framework for specialty care teams

When deciding how to approach lab integrations, a few questions consistently clarify the right path:

• Is your product primarily running lab workflows or analyzing patient history?
• Do you need operational reliability and control, or broad historical coverage first?
• Who depends on this data day-to-day? Clinicians, patients, analysts, or all three?
• What does success look like in the next 6 to 12 months, not in an ideal future state?

The most common mistake is premature optimization. Teams over-architect for future needs and end up slowing down what matters now.

Choosing the right abstraction early does not lock you in forever. It gives your product a stable foundation to grow from. In specialty care, where workflows, outcomes, and patient trust are tightly connected, that foundation makes all the difference.

Choosing the right integration strategy early can save months of rework.
We help teams implement integration architectures that actually fit your solution.