HIPAA and PCI-DSS Costs in Healthcare and Fintech App Development

A healthcare data breach costs an average of $6.64 million, the highest of any industry for the thirteenth consecutive year, according to IBM’s Cost of a Data Breach Report. Financial services breaches average $6.29 million. Those numbers are why a healthcare app development company raises HIPAA before the first wireframe, and why a fintech app development company does the same with PCI-DSS.

Compliance never behaves like a normal feature line. It touches architecture, hosting, testing, and documentation at once, and each of those costs time long before it costs money.

What HIPAA Enforcement Costs in Real Settlements

Skipping a HIPAA risk analysis is a recurring problem in OCR settlements. Case in point, OCR fined Warby Parker $1.5 million in February 2025 after finding the company had never carried out a proper risk analysis. Northeast Radiology made the same mistake two months later, for $350,000. Third came BayCare Health System, an $800,000 settlement that May.

The issue in all three cases started before the systems went live. A proper risk analysis could have identified security gaps while the architecture was still being designed. Once those gaps surface during an audit, fixing them can require substantial changes to a system that is already built and in use.

David Barlev, founder and CEO of Goji Labs, a Los Angeles product development agency, describes what happens when compliance requirements surface after the initial architecture is already in place.

“Nobody budgets for a second data model,” he says. “The first one gets built to ship fast. The second one gets built six months later, after a PCI assessor or a HIPAA auditor asks a question the architecture can’t answer, and that rebuild costs more than the original one did.”

What a Settlement Can Cost in App Development

Under the current HHS schedule, HIPAA penalties run from $145 to $73,011 per violation, depending on culpability. HHS also caps the total penalties for each violation category at about $2.19 million per calendar year. The final penalty depends on the number of violations, their severity, and the applicable culpability tier.

A HIPAA-compliant app development process gets ahead of that number entirely. Risk analysis, access controls, audit logs, and breach procedures should be part of the development work from the start.

A security weakness caught during development means changing code that hasn’t shipped yet. The same weakness caught after launch means reworking architecture, processes, and data flows that are already live and already depended on.

The Risk Analysis Sequence

HHS guidance breaks a proper risk analysis into a specific sequence:

• List the systems and devices that handle protected health information.
• Identify the threats and vulnerabilities affecting them.
• Assess the likelihood of each risk and the potential impact.
• Document what needs to be done to address those risks.

This is the exact sequence OCR checks first when a complaint triggers an investigation. And it now runs a standing initiative built around exactly that check, which has closed 11 hacking-incident investigations with financial penalties as of January 31, 2026, according to HIPAA Journal’s ongoing tracker of OCR settlements.

What SOC 2 Costs Before a Single Enterprise Deal Closes

Although SOC 2 is optional, this distinction may vanish if an enterprise client requests the report. It may become necessary throughout the vendor approval process for custom healthcare software development and fintech businesses that sell to B2B buyers.

A missing report can hold up a security review and, in some cases, keep a deal stuck for months over a requirement that has nothing to do with the product itself.

The type of report matters, too.

1. Type II shows that the controls worked as intended over a set period of time.
2. Type I looks at whether those controls were in place at a specific point in time.

A Type II audit typically requires three to twelve months of evidence before the auditor can issue the report.

Why SOC 2 Type II Needs an Observation Period in App Development

The observation window moves at its own pace, whatever else happens on the rest of the project. A company can build every required control in a sprint. It cannot compress the months an auditor needs to observe whether those controls hold up in real use.

Treat SOC 2 like a pre-launch checklist, and the audit clock exposes that mistake fast. Teams end up rebuilding logging and access-control systems mid-project, after the observation period has already started counting. The weak points in what was built only become visible once real observation begins.

“You can’t backdate an audit trail. A team can build every control SOC 2 asks for in a week, but the auditor still has to watch it work for months, and no amount of extra engineers changes that,” Barlev says.

Criteria and Timing

SOC 2 evaluates a system against five Trust Service Criteria:

1. Security,
2. Availability,
3. Processing integrity,
4. Confidentiality,
5. Privacy.

Most companies scope their first audit to security alone, the only criterion every report must include. They can add the others later when a broader report becomes useful in a sales conversation. The important part is starting the observation period early.

Timing that period correctly can change the project schedule. A team that starts when production traffic goes live can have a report ready for an enterprise sales conversation within a year. A team that waits until a prospect asks for one starts the clock then, potentially putting the deal on hold while the evidence accumulates.

What PCI-DSS Requires From a Fintech Build

PCI-DSS version 4.0.1 became the mandatory standard in March 2025, according to the PCI Security Standards Council. It replaced the prior version across twelve requirement families covering network security, access control, encryption, and monitoring.

A fintech software development company building anything that touches card data has to satisfy all twelve.

Why Scope Reduction Drives the Budget

The requirement that moves the most budget is usually scope reduction, architecting the system so cardholder data touches as few components as possible. Every system inside that scope needs its own controls, its own audit trail, and its own place in the assessment. A smaller scope means a smaller, cheaper audit.

A merchant’s self-assessment questionnaire level is set by transaction volume and how card data gets handled. That level determines how deep the assessment has to go. A build that routes card data through a hosted third-party field can often qualify for the lightest questionnaire tier available.

Deciding Early

Tokenization and third-party payment processors exist to shrink that scope. The decision usually gets made early, often before a single screen is designed. Leave it too late, and the team may have to rework payment flows it already built, including card-handling code that should never have been part of the core application.

“The card number should never see the inside of our client’s database,” Barlev says. “Every field that touches it is a field an assessor has to check, so the fastest way to cut a PCI audit in half is to make sure there’s less of it to audit.”

That makes payment architecture an early design decision. Once card data starts flowing through the core application, pulling it back out can mean rebuilding parts of the payment flow.

Where the Time Concentrates During App Development

Compliance work tends to pile up at certain stages of a project. Knowing when those tasks come up makes budgeting easier and avoids surprises halfway through development.

• Architecture and data flow mapping. Decide what needs protection and where that data goes before designing the interface.
• Infrastructure and hosting. Network segmentation, access logging, and encryption are usually handled at the hosting layer. Set these up before launch.
• Documentation. Written policies, audit trails, and risk analyses have to stay current. An auditor can ask for them at any point.
• Third-party review. SOC 2 and PCI audits can outlast the development schedule. The team needs to account for that when planning the project.

A team approaching healthcare and fintech app development with these four checkpoints already mapped avoids the most common failure mode on regulated builds.

The real cost of compliance shows up when these decisions are made separately. A hosting choice can affect audit scope. A data model can determine what needs to be documented. A payment architecture can decide how much of the system falls under PCI review. Those connections are easy to miss when compliance is handled as a separate task.

Where Healthcare and Fintech Compliance Overlap

Some products don’t fit neatly into one category. A health savings account app, a medical billing platform that processes payments, and a telehealth service running its own payment rails each need to meet HIPAA and PCI-DSS requirements simultaneously.

And when it comes to handling the same piece of data, the two frameworks don’t always agree.

Where the Two App Development Frameworks Collide

HIPAA governs protected health information. PCI-DSS governs cardholder data. A single transaction record in a medical billing context can carry both. A patient name tied to a procedure code can sit right next to a card number, on the same row. A system built for one framework in isolation often mishandles the other.

The safer architecture separates the two data types at the database level from the start. A PCI assessor never needs visibility into clinical data. A HIPAA audit never needs to touch payment infrastructure.

“A patient record and a card number should never share a table,” Barlev says. “Once they do, every HIPAA auditor and every PCI assessor has a reason to look at data that has nothing to do with their job.”

The Cost of Fixing It Later

Retrofitting that separation after launch means restructuring the data model a second time. The work is the same work either way. Doing it a year later, under a compliance deadline someone else set, costs more than doing it during the original build ever would have.

A product may launch with one type of data and add the other later. At that point, the separation has to be done around data that’s already in the system. There are real records to move, live processes to account for, and users already depending on the application.

When to Start Each Compliance Clock

The three timelines don’t wait for the product to be finished. HIPAA work starts while the architecture is still being defined. SOC 2 evidence starts accumulating once there’s a stable system to monitor. PCI scope gets locked in when the payment architecture is designed.

These timelines can overlap. The team can start collecting SOC 2 evidence while development continues, and PCI scope can be settled before the payment flow is built. That leaves time to address changes before they become a launch or sales problem.

Read Next

A few related pieces worth your time:

• Could Your Business Benefit from an App? Your Answer Should Be Yes
• Best Wyzowl Alternatives: Why Moodive Is a Top Choice
• Why the Most Profitable Chimney Businesses Think Like Software Companies

Budget For App Development Compliance from the First Planning Meeting

Healthcare security budgets grew by an average of 5% in 2026, according to the Security Budget Benchmark Report from IANS and Artico Search. The median growth was 0%, and 55% of CISOs reported flat or declining budgets. With many security teams working with little or no additional budget, unexpected compliance costs can be difficult to absorb once development is underway.

That makes the timing of compliance work important. Requirements identified during planning can be estimated and accounted for before development begins. A failed audit, settlement, or late architecture change can add expenses after the project is already underway.

For a custom healthcare software development project, HIPAA requirements can be built into the plan from the first meeting. A fintech software development company can do the same with PCI-DSS or SOC 2. The earlier those requirements are mapped to the architecture, infrastructure, and development schedule, the fewer late changes the team has to make.