Good point, but my medical friends' complaints tend to be about the software they have to use more than anything else. And on top of that there's a lack of software tools for a lot of things they do.
There is lots of good bioinformatics software. The problem is often that institutions don't want to pay for it, because open-source software is available with similar functionality (albeit with lacking user interfaces).
In my experience, it is very difficult to make money with scientific software in general, so I'm certainly not expecting a "goldrush" here.
I agree to some degree (!) but I believe a lot of the software used by medical personnel in their daily routines could use an overhaul, plus numerous other modern tools could be given to them for daily use.
HIPAA (among other things) makes it Not Fun™ to be in that space. It's not that it isn't ripe—almost overripe—for an overhaul, but that the bureaucratic requirements tend to attract, well, bureaucratic types and reject people of a more "disruptive" nature. There's no particular reason why software and systems that can pass audits can't be as pleasant to use as any; it's just a matter of assembling a team of people that is creative, has both an aesthetic and ergonomic sensibility, and doesn't mind the kind of working environment that the process (and the auditors' interpretation of regulations; it doesn't matter what's actually required if nobody will certify that you've met the requirements) demands.
In my experience, it is very difficult to make money with scientific software in general, so I'm certainly not expecting a "goldrush" here.