FHIR is a global standard, like all HL7 standards. Although FHIR allows for national differences, the enormous potential of this technology applies, of course, to healthcare internationally. Now, we have seen in the past that not all standards are implemented in all countries equally. The Netherlands for example have invested in HL7 v3, far more than other countries. The US have done their part in CDA.
Now, the US have tremendously taken off with FHIR in the last 2 years. Interoperability is a political thing there, much more than here in Europe. There is money involved as well. All major vendors and providers have declared interoperability as a strategic asset. FHIR is the right technology at the right time. In the right place too: the US.
Also in other parts of the world? This is what worries Grahame Grieve. How to keep a universal focus if one country is taking the lead (not just any country) and the rest of the world is lagging behind? You would not want to have a FHIR US, FHIR UK, FHIR etc., other than national extensions and profiles within the standard.
The US momentum is a blessing: it enables investments needed to make interoperability happen. It is also a wake-up call to other countries: don’t just stand there. Do something. For a start: watch Grahame’s opinion in The FHIR Interviews Part III, “Worries”.