Please be advised that links within this article will take you to a website hosted by another party.
Integro Bank assumes no liability for the content, information, security, policies, or transactions provided by these other sites.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transitioning from an emerging technology to a common aspect of medical practice. According to the American Medical Association’s 2026 Physician AI Survey, 81% of physicians reported using AI in their professional work, compared to just 38% in 2023. The 2026 survey included 1,692 physicians from various specialties, practice settings, and career stages, providing an up-to-date view of physician adoption and attitudes toward AI.
The growth in AI adoption among physicians has been significant. The AMA noted that the percentage of physicians using AI increased from 38% in 2023 to 66% in 2024, reaching 81% by 2026. Furthermore, more than three-quarters of physicians in 2026 indicated that AI improves their ability to care for patients, up from 65% in 2023. However, it’s important to note that these findings reflect physician-reported adoption and perceptions, rather than proving that AI has directly improved patient care.
Adoption is also evident at the medical group level. An August 2026 MGMA Stat poll revealed that 83% of medical groups reported that AI played some role in patient visits, an increase from 71% the previous year. Among those surveyed, the proportion of respondents reporting AI usage in more than one-quarter of patient encounters grew from 24% in 2025 to 45% in 2026.
In private practices, the adoption pattern shows some variation. An AMA analysis published in 2025 found that 64% of physicians in private practice used health AI, compared to 72% of employed physicians. This difference highlights that AI adoption is not uniform across practice settings, suggesting that ownership structure could influence reported adoption rates.
Understanding the applications of AI in medical practice provides further insight into its adoption. In the AMA's 2026 survey, 39% of physicians reported using AI to summarize medical research and standards of care, while 30% used it to create discharge instructions, care plans, or progress notes. Additionally, 28% reported using AI for documentation of billing codes, medical charts, or visit notes, and another 28% used it to generate chart summaries.
Administrative applications of AI are also gaining attention. In the AMA's 2024 survey, 57% of physicians identified reducing administrative burdens through automation as a key opportunity for AI, making it the most commonly selected opportunity that year. The same survey found that 66% of physicians reported using some type of AI tool in their practice, a significant increase from 38% in 2023.
Furthermore, medical practices are utilizing AI across various operational functions. MGMA reported in June 2026 that nearly 70% of medical groups had either added or expanded AI tools in the previous year, with the focus on areas such as ambient documentation, scheduling, patient communications, and revenue cycle management. The report also noted that 37% of respondents identified workforce investment as their largest new spending category for 2026, while 36% pointed to automation as the most important cost-saving strategy.
However, the increasing use of AI does not guarantee that organizations will see a financial return. A May 2026 MGMA poll of 257 medical practice leaders revealed that only 46% believed new AI tools had made their providers more productive over the previous two years. Meanwhile, 27% reported no productivity gains, 14% were uncertain, and 13% stated they did not use AI.
The distinction between adoption and measurable financial results is also evident among larger healthcare organizations. McKinsey's 2026 survey of U.S. healthcare leaders found that 50% reported their organizations had implemented generative AI, while more than 80% had deployed their initial use cases to end users. However, a separate McKinsey analysis indicated that only 45% of healthcare organizations that had implemented generative AI had quantified its return on investment.
These findings suggest that measuring AI investment requires more than simply tracking whether a tool has been implemented. The MGMA productivity survey evaluated outcomes such as provider productivity, while McKinsey reported the percentage of organizations that had quantified their return on investment. Together, these figures illustrate that implementation and measurable financial impact are separate metrics.
Financial considerations regarding AI can extend beyond the purchase of individual technologies. MGMA's 2026 budget research revealed that 30% of medical group leaders identified health IT as their largest new investment category for 2026, while 37% focused on workforce, and 12% each on revenue cycle and patient access. This indicates that technology investments are being evaluated alongside staffing, revenue cycle, and patient access priorities rather than in isolation.
Training and implementation also play crucial roles. The AMA's 2026 physician survey found that 85% of physicians wanted to be consulted or directly involved in decisions regarding AI adoption. Additionally, 86% identified data privacy as essential for broader AI adoption, while 88% emphasized the importance of robust safety measures.
For physician-owned practices, the emerging lesson from the available research is not that every practice should adopt AI, nor that AI will automatically generate savings or revenue. Rather, the current evidence supports evaluating AI as an investment decision that can be measured through adoption, utilization, implementation requirements, productivity and financial outcomes. As AI adoption continues to expand, the ability to evaluate those outcomes may become increasingly important to the financial leadership of medical practices.