Artificial intelligence is dominating headlines. But in most medical practices, AI is still sitting in the waiting room. 

Physicians don’t typically adopt new technology quickly, even when they stand to benefit from it. According to Tebra’s 2025 AI survey, 6 in 10 clinicians haven’t used any AI tools in their workflow. It’s not that they don’t see the potential that AI holds for transforming patient health, workflows, and system efficiency — 72.2% of medical leaders believe AI’s benefits in healthcare outweigh its risks. But they’re held back by legitimate concerns, including trust, cost, integration, and legal uncertainties. 

This article explores the barriers that keep private practices from using AI and discusses how to increase the likelihood of adopting these technologies in the exam room.

While many physicians understand AI conceptually, they don’t feel equipped to use it, struggle to visualize how it fits into their specific workflows, and lack confidence in interpreting or challenging its outputs.

Tebra’s survey found that 51% of providers don’t have enough education about how AI works, while 37% simply don’t know what’s available. They’re not resisting innovation per se, but rather have a lack of understanding and support. In fact, a survey by the American Medical Association (AMA) on physician sentiments around the use of AI in healthcare found that 84% of physicians want to get proper training so they can use AI tools effectively.

As AI clinical use becomes more complex, vendors and professional associations must invest in practical, hands-on training sessions through live demos, continuing medical education programs, and peer-led case studies. Clinicians can try tools in context; evaluate how they fit into real workflows; and gain the clarity, confidence, and skills to use AI from those who’ve successfully tested it in similar settings. 

Private practices often operate on razor-thin margins when it comes to both money and time. In many practices, patient schedules are packed and administrative tasks pile up. Many physicians don’t have time to evaluate or implement new tools. 48% say they haven’t had time to explore AI options and 37% cite lack of time for training as a barrier.

Practices need tools that prove their value quickly, ideally within weeks — not months. The AI tools must also offer streamlined onboarding experiences — in Tebra's survey, 72% of providers said an “easy setup” is non-negotiable. Successful implementation often depends on pilot programs that demonstrate clear value without overwhelming busy teams.

In a heavily regulated industry, AI introduces new compliance challenges. Without clear guidance on liability, approvals, and safe use, many providers view it as a potential legal risk — one that could lead to fines, lawsuits, or reputational damage.

In our survey, medical providers shared the scope of these concerns: 57% cite regulatory uncertainty as a barrier, 61% have legal or compliance concerns regarding the use of  AI in telehealth and in-person documentation, and 40% say concern about legal risk somewhat or very much affects their willingness to try AI. 

Practices should demand AI tools with built-in audit trails, clear HIPAA compliance documentation, and transparent data handling policies. According to our findings, 80% of practices require HIPAA compliance as a baseline feature. Providers should look for vendors who can explain exactly how their tools meet regulatory requirements.

Sixty percent of providers cite cost as a major barrier to AI adoption, with 28% saying they would pay $51 to $100 per month for AI tools, while 20% would rather not pay anything extra at all. 

Besides upfront costs, providers also want proof that AI will save money or generate a good return on investment before they commit to new monthly expenses.

“I would say that most physicians and practices would be willing to pay some upfront cost for implementation of AI if they were confident that it would provide a cost savings in the long run,” says Jesse Houghton, MD, FACG, senior medical director of gastroenterology at Southern Ohio Medical Center.

Vendors should offer flexible pricing models tied to documented outcomes. For 65% of providers, AI is only worth it if it saves at least 30 minutes daily. Tools that can demonstrate measurable time savings have a much better chance of adoption.

Many clinicians worry that technology built outside healthcare doesn’t understand clinical nuances. Thirty-two percent of non-users don’t trust AI’s accuracy. They’ve seen too many “revolutionary” tools that promised everything but delivered only headaches. 

This skepticism extends to the companies behind AI tools, with 43% of providers saying they don’t trust the vendors themselves. They wonder whether vendors understand medical workflows, how long they’ll be around for, and if their customer support team actually helps with clinical questions.

Trust builds through transparency and control. Our survey shows that 82% say editing and reviewing AI-generated content is essential. They want to maintain final authority over clinical decisions. Nearly half of physicians (47%) in AMA’s study ranked increased oversight as the main regulatory action needed to increase trust in adopting AI tools, while 40% report they’d be more likely to trust AI from companies they already use, suggesting that established healthcare technology vendors have an advantage. 

Learn how Tebra's AI Smart Staff can help you leave admin behind and leave your office on time.

Private practices have unique challenges, patient populations, and operational constraints that generic AI tools might not address. For instance, a family practice’s needs differ significantly from those of a dermatology clinic.

So while clinicians understand AI as a concept, 34% of providers say available AI tools aren’t built for their specific needs.

Seamless EHR integration is mandatory — 66% of providers say it’s critical for adoption. AI-enabled tools that integrate with and work within their existing workflows, rather than requiring entirely new processes, have much better adoption rates.

Modern healthcare increasingly emphasizes patient involvement and informed consent. Our survey found 65% of clinicians believe patients should be informed if AI is used in their documentation.

“If the AI software includes listening to and documenting patient questions and responses, it is a good idea to at least get permission from the patient beforehand. This also serves the purpose of educating the patient if the interaction feels different for them due to the provider speaking everything out loud during the encounter,” says Houghton.

This creates new ethical territory, with no clear industry-standard answers yet on how much patients should know about AI use or what level of disclosure is appropriate.

Forward-thinking AI tools should include patient-facing disclaimers or customizable consent language that help practices navigate these transparency requirements confidently.

To overcome these barriers, successful AI adoption requires tools that address provider concerns directly. Here’s an overview of key considerations when assessing AI-powered tools:

AI adoption in private practices is about finding practical solutions to real operational challenges.

Tebra’s survey data shows providers aren’t resistant to change but appropriately cautious about tools that could affect patient care and practice sustainability. When AI vendors address these legitimate concerns with transparent, practice-focused solutions, adoption will naturally follow.

Until then, the gap between AI headlines and exam room reality will persist. For practices ready to move forward thoughtfully, the right tools can offer significant advantages in efficiency, accuracy, and competitive positioning.

Ready to explore AI solutions built specifically for private practices? Learn how Tebra’s AI Smart Staff addresses these common adoption barriers while keeping you in control of your clinical workflows.