When health systems weigh the option to build their own digital tools instead of buying commercial products, the decision often hinges on integration needs, cost efficiency and the ability to tailor functionality for specialty care.
NYU Langone and Dana‑Farber create Solavia Decision Suite
NYU Langone Health and the Dana‑Farber Cancer Institute teamed up to launch a homegrown oncology decision‑support platform called Solavia Decision Suite. The tool debuted in a pilot at NYU Langone in June, embedding directly into the institution’s electronic health record (EHR) to align patient data with the latest research, guidelines and therapy options.
“For oncologists to decide which chemotherapy a patient receives is a complex matter because oncology research changes quite a bit,” said Nader Mherabi, executive vice president, vice dean and chief digital and information officer at NYU Langone. By pulling relevant studies into the clinician workflow, Solavia aims to streamline treatment planning without forcing physicians to toggle between separate applications.
The partnership arose after both institutions relied on a Phillips oncology pathways product whose content had been curated by Dana‑Farber. When Phillips announced the sunset of its oncology business, NYU Langone faced a choice: seek a new vendor or develop a more robust, collaborative solution with its cancer research partner. The decision to build resulted in a platform that can be integrated not only with Epic, the shared EHR at both sites, but also with other systems such as Cerner or deployed as a standalone application.
Why building mattered more than buying
According to Mherabi, the primary appeal of creating a bespoke solution lay in tight workflow integration. “Physicians’ time is so limited, information and workflows have to be in front of them,” he explained. Solavia’s design places treatment pathways directly within the patient chart, reducing clicks and navigation time.
Related: Medtronic wins CE mark for VT ablation treatment
Scalability factored into the architecture as well. The cloud‑based platform is intended to be extendable, allowing future enhancements without overhauling the core system.
Solavia is now commercially available—a rarity for hospital‑originated tools, which often remain in‑house or are sold to a limited set of partners.
Other health systems have taken similar paths. Earlier this year, Geisinger Health System unveiled its own genomic medicine platform, another example of specialty‑care institutions opting to build rather than purchase.
Smaller institutions might still find it more practical to purchase off‑the‑shelf solutions.
Looking ahead, the decision to build or buy will likely depend on the balance between customization needs and the maturity of available SaaS options. As cloud platforms evolve, the line between building a bespoke tool and configuring an existing one may blur, giving hospitals more flexibility to choose the path that best aligns with patient‑care goals.
