Cost–Benefit Analysis of AI Clinical Documentation Tools

Executive Summary

Detailed Research

Methodology

Evidence includes system-level case reports, modeling studies, and general discussions in AI documentation reviews; there are few rigorous, prospective economic evaluations of AI documentation tools. Cost components typically considered include subscription or licensing costs, IT integration and maintenance, training, and any additional staffing support.

Benefits are modeled as time saved per clinician, improved visit throughput or panel size, better coding capture, and reduced burnout-related turnover costs.

Key Studies

Improving Clinical Documentation with AI (Economic Considerations)

• Design: Systematic review with economic analysis
• Sample: Multiple implementations
• Findings: Economic evaluations are sparse but highlights case reports in which AI documentation tools reduce documentation time and improve note completeness, supporting the plausibility of positive ROI in appropriate settings.
• Clinical Relevance: Positive ROI possible but context-dependent

Large Medical Group Experience with Ambient AI Scribes (2025)

• Design: Implementation report
• Sample: Large Permanente medical group
• Findings: 15,000 hours of physician time saved over 2.5 million uses of ambient AI scribes, along with improvements in burnout and satisfaction. Implicit calculations suggest value of time saved may exceed subscription costs in high-volume settings.
• Clinical Relevance: High-volume practices may see clear ROI

Vendor and Health-System Modeling Analyses

• Design: Internal modeling studies
• Sample: Various practice settings
• Findings: Even modest per-visit time savings, when applied to thousands of visits per year, can support several percent increases in capacity or reductions in overtime, generating financial benefits that offset AI fees.
• Clinical Relevance: Scale matters for economic viability

Clinical Implications

For osteopathic practices, particularly larger groups or those with high visit volumes, AI documentation tools may become cost-effective when they reliably reduce documentation time, support more accurate coding of OMT and complexity, and help retain clinicians.

Small independent practices must carefully analyze local volumes, payer mix, and staffing to determine whether subscription costs are justified, and may benefit from limited pilots or shared enterprise contracts.

Limitations & Research Gaps

Independent, peer-reviewed cost–benefit and cost-effectiveness studies are rare. Most economic claims originate from vendor or internal reports and may not account for all costs, such as integration, workflow redesign, and potential increases in after-hours review.

There is no osteopathy-specific economic research evaluating whether AI documentation improves billing for OMT or MSK care, or how it affects margins in DO-heavy practices.

Osteopathic Perspective

Osteopathic physicians must balance financial sustainability with fidelity to osteopathic principles. AI documentation that enables more time for OMT, better capture of complexity, and reduced burnout can support mission and margin simultaneously.

Transparent, clinician-led evaluations of costs and benefits—beyond marketing claims—are essential to ensure that AI investments truly enhance whole-person care rather than simply adding another expense line.