Skip to main content
Documentation FreedomObservational2025

Implementation Costs and Long-Term Savings of AI Documentation Systems

Key Finding

Case-based and modeling analyses suggest that implementing generative-AI documentation in large health systems involves substantial upfront costs (software, integration, training), but potential positive returns through time savings, improved coding, and reduced burnout are plausible over a 1–3 year horizon. Exact ROI varies widely by institution size, workflow design, and baseline documentation efficiency, and robust comparative cost-effectiveness data remain limited.

8 min read2 sources cited
all

Executive Summary

A 2025 NIH-indexed analysis of generative-AI costs in large healthcare systems outlines how expenses for licensing, infrastructure, EHR integration, and maintenance can be significant in the first year of deployment. However, these costs may be offset by gains in billing classification efficiency, documentation completeness, and clinician time savings when AI is effectively integrated into workflows. Similar to other enterprise AI initiatives, the economic profile is characterized by high upfront investment followed by potential recurring savings and productivity gains.

General AI cost-frameworks and health-system commentaries emphasize the importance of considering not only direct subscription and IT costs but also change-management, training, and temporary productivity dips during rollout. Long-term savings arise from reduced manual documentation time, fewer coding-related denials and rework, and possibly reduced turnover if documentation burden and burnout decrease. Small practices face different economics, with lower absolute savings but relatively higher fixed-cost impact.

Detailed Research

Methodology

Evidence comes from a 2025 case analysis of generative-AI costs in a large health system, general AI economic frameworks, and narrative discussions in AI documentation reviews. These sources use cost-accounting and scenario modeling rather than randomized financial trials.

Cost elements considered include software licensing/subscription, cloud or on-premises compute, EHR integration and testing, governance and monitoring, and training and support.

Key Studies

Generative AI Costs in Large Healthcare Systems (2025)

  • Design: Case analysis of AI deployment costs
  • Sample: Large health system
  • Findings: While initial costs are nontrivial, there is "potential positive return" through improved billing classification efficiency and reduced manual effort.
  • Clinical Relevance: Establishes cost framework for AI documentation

Improving Clinical Documentation with AI – Economic Themes (2024)

  • Design: Systematic review with economic considerations
  • Sample: Multiple implementations
  • Findings: While rigorous cost-effectiveness evidence is sparse, simulations and case reports suggest that time savings and coding improvements could outweigh costs in high-volume settings.
  • Clinical Relevance: Supports plausibility of positive ROI

AI Cost Transformation Frameworks (2025)

  • Design: Cross-industry AI economic analysis
  • Sample: Multiple sectors including healthcare
  • Findings: Generative-AI deployments can reduce document-processing time by 70–90% in some industries. Year-1 costs dominated by integration and change management; later years benefit from operational efficiencies.
  • Clinical Relevance: Provides context for healthcare AI investments

Clinical Implications

For osteopathic groups and health systems employing DOs, AI documentation investments should be evaluated using local models that incorporate physician time savings, potential revenue gains from improved OMT and complexity coding, and effects on recruitment and retention.

Staged rollouts, pilot evaluations, and strong IT-clinical collaboration can help minimize disruption and clarify whether long-term savings justify the capital and operating expenses.

Limitations & Research Gaps

There are few peer-reviewed, comparative cost-effectiveness analyses directly measuring long-term ROI of AI documentation versus alternatives (for example, human scribes, template optimization).

Existing models focus on large systems; there is virtually no empirical cost data for small, independent osteopathic practices, where economies of scale differ substantially.

Osteopathic Perspective

Osteopathic physicians must weigh economic sustainability against the imperative to maintain whole-person, hands-on care. Investments in AI that reduce clerical load and support OMT documentation can align financial and clinical goals if implemented thoughtfully.

Osteopathic leadership engagement in cost modeling and vendor selection can ensure that economic decisions support, rather than erode, the distinct structural and relational aspects of osteopathic practice.

References (2)

  1. Bates DW, Landman A, et al. “Generative AI Costs in Large Healthcare Systems: An Example in Clinical Documentation and Billing.” NEJM AI, 2025;2:e2500123. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMai2500123
  2. Conboy EE, McCoy AB, Wright A, et al. “Improving Clinical Documentation with Artificial Intelligence.” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2024;31:960-972. DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocae102

Related Research

Time Savings and Documentation Burden with AI Ambient Scribes in Outpatient Practice

Observational data from large health systems suggest AI ambient scribes reduce active EHR documentation time by roughly 0.7–1.0 minutes per encounter (for baseline documentation times of about 5–6 minutes) and 2–3 hours per week overall, with some early program evaluations reporting 30–40 minutes saved per physician workday; however, time saved is often offset by increased after-hours review and there are no completed RCTs yet to confirm net time savings at scale.

Clinical Documentation Burden as a Driver of Physician Burnout

Across large multi‑specialty cohorts, physicians spend 1.5–2.6 hours per workday on EHR documentation outside scheduled clinic time, and higher after‑hours documentation is independently associated with 20–40% higher odds of burnout and intent to leave practice. Reducing documentation burden is consistently highlighted as a top organizational lever for mitigating burnout, but most interventions to date show only modest absolute reductions in EHR time (≈15–30 minutes/day) and limited long‑term follow‑up.

Patient Perceptions of AI Ambient Scribes in the Exam Room

Survey studies in outpatient and emergency settings report that 80–90% of patients are comfortable with ambient scribe technologies when clinicians explain the purpose and privacy safeguards, with fewer than 10% requesting that devices be turned off. Patient‑reported trust and visit satisfaction are generally non‑inferior to usual care, although a minority express concerns about privacy and loss of direct physician attention.