Hate to Break It: Most Doctors Don't Use AI Scribes

The 92% penetration rate cited by Bessemer Venture Partners is wildly inflated and riddled with bias. The true unbiased figure is 25% or lower.

Original source: https://www.bvp.com/atlas/the-healthcare-ai-adoption-index

Welcome to AI Health Uncut, a brutally honest newsletter on AI, innovation, and the state of the healthcare market. If you’d like to sign up to receive issues over email, you can do so here.

🥳 Happy upcoming 4th of July, everyone! 🎆🇺🇸

First things first. If you cannot afford this article—perhaps you’re a student or currently between jobs—please reach out. That’s precisely why I created the AI Health Uncut Founding Member Club. Thanks to generous donations and support from these wonderful individuals, I’m able to provide access to anyone who needs it. By the way, students reach out frequently, and I’m always glad to help.

If you’d like to become a Founding Member of the AI Health Uncut community, you can join through this link. You’ll be making a real impact, helping me continue to challenge the system and push for better outcomes in healthcare through AI, technology, policy, and beyond.

Some readers are asking me:

“Why are you spending so much time on AI scribes?”

Well, here’s my answer: There’s currently zero FDA oversight. AI scribes are copying each other, running wild, and the market has mushroomed with AI tourists and knockoffs—thank you, AI-vibe coding! Clinicians are bombarded daily by these fly-by-night apps. I’m here to separate the legit from the bullshit.

A lot of doctors I’ve talked to love their AI scribes. But despite the recent “sensational” headlines and hype, AI scribe penetration across the healthcare industry remains painfully slow. It’s certainly nowhere near the 92% figure recently touted by organizations that might have a vested interest in inflating that number.

https://youtube.com/shorts/EHZGke1jFsY

Let me be clear: I have the utmost respect for Sofia Guerra, Steve Kraus, and the other authors of that report. This isn’t personal. I’m just trying to get to the truth. And if someone proves me wrong after reading this piece—like I was recently corrected on Ambience AI scribe detail in my top 50 AI scribes ranking—I’ll do what I did then: own it and fix it.

Three painful truths about medical AI scribes:

1. Most AI scribes are “AI tourists” and knockoffs. See my latest “boots-on-the-ground” ranking of the top 50 AI scribes.

2. Most doctors don’t use AI scribes. Many don’t even want to.

3. Points 1 and 2 are very much related. 😉

Look, we all love tech. But let’s not jump the gun. Let’s look at the facts.

And the facts are: if you look at the industry overall—not just a cherry-picked sample of tech-forward, innovation-hungry physicians—the actual AI scribe penetration rate is 25% or lower. Not the 92% figure recently pushed by Bessemer Venture Partners in collaboration with AWS and Bain & Company.

By the way, if you’re a patient, when was the last time your doctor used an AI scribe? Unless you see a very specific, tech-savvy doctor, the odds are microscopic across the specialists you visit.

But that’s anecdotal. Let’s jump to real facts...

In this article, I test the credibility of of industry reports on AI scribe adoption and examine the biases baked into them. Let’s go!