Compliance with Ségur, interoperability of data flows, and data portability now dictate the choice of management software for medical practices. Any practitioner evaluating a solution in 2026 must integrate these regulatory constraints even before comparing clinical functionalities.
Patient data portability: what the May 2026 law concretely changes
Law No. 2026-403 of May 26, 2026, known as the law for the simplification of economic life, creates a specific obligation for medical record software publishers. Free return of all data within a maximum of 30 days, in a standardized and documented format.
Ten categories of data are covered: medical and administrative data from the medical summary, Ségur documents, laboratory results, prescription history, other patient documents, agenda, consultation notes, software logs, and personal notes of the practitioner.
This framework aligns with the European Data Act regulation (EU 2023/2854), applicable since September 12, 2025, which requires SaaS providers to remove technical and contractual barriers to changing providers. The solutions offered on irist.fr allow for the evaluation of publishers based on their compliance with these new portability requirements.
In practice, a practice considering migrating to another software now has a clear legal lever. We recommend checking, before any subscription, that the publisher explicitly documents its export procedure and the file formats used.
Ségur referencing wave 2: compliance criteria for practice software
The Ségur digital health program structures the market for medical software around interoperability requirements. A non-referenced Ségur software limits access to DMP flows and secure health messaging, two components that have become central to city-hospital coordination.
Wave 2 of Ségur expands the scope to structured exchanges between professionals. Publishers must ensure compatibility with the national health identity reference (INS) and the automated transmission of documents to the patient’s DMP.
Verification points before purchase
- Is the software listed on the official list of Ségur referenced solutions, available on the ANS website? A publisher announcing “in progress” compliance provides no guarantee of a timeline.
- Is SESAM-Vitale teletransmission native or does it require a paid add-on module? This point changes the actual cost of the solution.
- Does the publisher cover the indicators of ROSP (Remuneration on Public Health Objectives)? Automated tracking of these indicators avoids time-consuming manual reprocessing at the end of the fiscal year.
- Is the technical support based in France, with contractual response times? A billing failure on a Friday evening without assistance halts all activity on Monday.
A medical software that meets these criteria covers the majority of regulatory needs of a liberal practice, whether in general medicine or specialties.
Cloud software or local installation: technical arbitration for a medical practice
The cloud changes the legal responsibility of the practitioner regarding the hosting of health data. SaaS software hosted by a certified HDS (Health Data Host) provider transfers the burden of technical compliance to the publisher. In a local installation, the practitioner remains responsible for backup, encryption, and security updates.
This distinction has direct consequences on the daily management of the practice. A local server requires hardware maintenance, regular backups, and a disaster recovery plan. The cloud eliminates these tasks but creates a dependency on internet connectivity.
Total cost of ownership
We observe that the comparison between cloud and local is often limited to the monthly subscription price. The total cost of ownership includes server hardware, its maintenance, system licenses, external backups, and the practitioner’s time spent on technical administration.
For a practice with one to three doctors, the cloud mode significantly reduces the technical burden. Beyond that, a multi-professional health center (MSP) may justify a local server if it has a dedicated IT provider.
Embedded medical AI: distinguishing the useful from the marketing
Several publishers now integrate artificial intelligence modules for note-taking during consultations, summarizing patient files, or assisting with prescriptions. A useful AI module automates a measurable task, not an already smooth process.
Automatic report assistants via voice recognition represent the most mature use case. They reduce post-consultation entry time and directly feed into the structured patient file.
In contrast, medical pre-consultation chatbots remain at an experimental stage for most publishers. Their added value heavily depends on the specialty and patient profile. A general medicine practice with an elderly patient base will not derive the same benefit as a dermatology practice focused on teleconsultation.
Evaluation criteria for an AI module
- Is data processing done on a certified HDS server, or do patient data transit through servers outside the European Union? This point conditions GDPR compliance.
- Does the module produce a documented time savings as reported by the publisher (user feedback, real-world measurements)?
- Can the AI be disabled without loss of functionality of the management software? An imposed module that malfunctions should not block billing or access to files.
The choice of medical practice software in 2026 is based on criteria that go beyond the ergonomics of the interface. Data portability, Ségur compliance, and HDS hosting form the non-negotiable technical foundation. AI functionalities add a layer of optimization, provided that their regulatory compliance is verified before being activated on real patient data.
