MGMA: 46% report AI productivity

The Medical Group Management Association said a May 12, 2026, Stat poll found 46% of medical practice leaders said new AI tools had made their providers more productive over the past two years. MGMA said 27% reported no productivity gains, 14% were unsure and 13% said they did not use AI at all. The association said the poll drew 257 applicable responses. The result adds a new data point to a healthcare AI market that has produced heavy vendor claims but uneven evidence from day-to-day practice operations. ### What exactly did MGMA ask medical groups? MGMA said the question in its May 12 poll was direct: “Have new AI tools made your providers more productive in the past two years?” The association’s write-up said the answers pointed to what it called “a complicated story,” with less than half reporting gains and a sizable share either seeing no benefit or not using the tools at all. The 257-response sample matters because MGMA’s Stat polls track administrators and practice leaders rather than software vendors or hospital marketing teams. That makes the result a readout on perceived operational impact inside medical groups, not on product adoption alone. ### Which AI tools were tied most closely to the reported gains? MGMA said ambient AI scribes dominated the open-ended responses from practices that reported productivity gains. The association said respondents repeatedly cited tools including DAX, DeepScribe and Suki as helping speed note completion and reduce administrative burden. Becker’s Hospital Review reported last week that ambient AI deployments have expanded across health systems and cited examples at Mass General Brigham and Emory Healthcare tied to documentation efficiency and lower physician burnout. Mass General Brigham said in an August 2025 release on a JAMA Network Open study that ambient documentation tools reduced physician burnout and improved well-being in surveyed clinicians. ### If scribes are helping, why are so many groups still unconvinced? MGMA said practice leaders are asking harder questions about whether AI improves operational measures such as patients seen, documentation completed, revenue captured and rework avoided. The association’s write-up said the top-line numbers alone showed mixed results, not a uniform payoff. The split is also consistent with other recent reporting on ambient documentation. Medical Xpress reported in April that research linked AI scribes to modest reductions in electronic health record use and documentation time. MSN, summarizing recent findings, said quality concerns remain even as clinicians save time, with benefits varying across users and settings. ### Where does EHR integration show up in this story? MGMA’s write-up framed the issue around operational returns, and that points directly to workflow integration inside the electronic health record. A tool that drafts notes faster but adds review steps, copy-paste work or cleanup inside the EHR may not produce the same gain as a tool that fits existing documentation and billing workflows. MGMA has highlighted that tension before. In a January 2025 Stat poll, the association said AI tools had become the top technology priority for medical practice leaders, overtaking EHR usability. In a February 2026 poll on front-office access, MGMA said medical groups were focusing AI efforts on scheduling, calls, registration and eligibility — areas where workflow fit is easier to measure. ### What does this poll say about healthcare AI adoption right now? MGMA’s May 2026 result suggests medical groups are moving past the question of whether to test AI and toward whether specific tools deliver enough operational value to justify the cost and workflow change. The strongest reported gains remain concentrated in narrow administrative use cases, especially documentation support. MGMA’s next public updates will likely come through its Stat series and member resources on AI adoption, where the association has been tracking documentation, patient access and workflow automation across medical groups.