Introduction

 

Adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to have important implications for health care delivery and workforce.1 AI can shape patient education and engagement, streamline documentation, and assist clinicians with information synthesis.2 However, there are limited data on real-time trends of AI adoption in the health care sector and how this compares with other sectors of the economy.3 To fill this knowledge gap, we compared AI use in health care vs other sectors from 2023 to 2025.

 

Methods

 

We analyzed the US Census Bureau’s Business Trends and Outlook Survey (BTOS) to examine changes in AI use from September 2023 to May 2025.4 In accordance with the Common Rule, this cross-sectional study was exempt from ethics review and informed consent because it used deidentified, publicly available BTOS data. We followed the STROBE reporting guideline.

 

The BTOS asks 1.2 million participating firms annually about their current use of AI for business purposes. Specifically, firms are asked, “In the last two weeks, did this business use … [AI] in producing goods or services? (Examples of AI: machine learning, natural language processing, virtual agents, voice recognition, etc.).” The North American Industry Classification System codes used to identify each sector and health care subsectors are described in the eMethods in Supplement 1. We reported unadjusted biweekly trends in the percentage of firms responding yes to using AI in the health care vs select other sectors.

 

We performed piecewise linear regression with the nl hockey program in Stata (StataCorp) to identify the break point in biweekly AI use trends. We then conducted an interrupted time series analysis to assess changes in the slope of AI use. Analyses were conducted with Stata, version 18.0. Two-sided hypothesis tests were used with a significance level of .05 (P < .05).

 

Results

 

Between September 2023 and May 2025, the mean (SD) AI use in health care by firms was 5.9% (1.6%; 119 300 firm-level responses) and increased over time. In 2025, AI use in health care (8.3%) was still lower than in other sectors, such as finance and insurance (11.6%); education (15.1%); professional, scientific, and technical services (19.2%); and information services (23.2%) (Figure, A). The estimated break point in AI use trends in the health care sector was December 30, 2024, to January 12, 2025 (Figure, B; Table). At this transition, the slope shifted significantly from nearly flat in 2023 through 2024 (biweekly percentage increase: 0.005%; 95% CI, 0.004%-0.007%) to gradually increasing (0.03%; 95% CI, 0.02%-0.03%)—a 481.5% change.

 

Figure.  Trends in Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use in Health Care vs Non–Health Care Sectors

 

A, The response estimate is plotted for the percentage of firms answering yes to the question: “In the last two weeks, did this business use … [AI] in producing goods or services? (Examples of AI: machine learning, natural language processing, virtual agents, voice recognition, etc.).” B, The estimated values are calculated from ordinary least squares regressions of the percentage of firms using AI on biweekly trends before and after the estimated break point on December 30, 2024. C, The US Census Bureau suppressed percentage estimates for nursing and residential care facilities for specific periods, as well as for hospitals across all periods, due to confidentiality reasons.

 

Table.  Changes in Percentage of 119 300 Firm-Level Responses on Current Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Health Care Sectora

 

Firms currently using AI, value (95% CI), %
Intercept
Before break pointb 6.5 (6.1-6.8)
After break pointb 6.3 (5.7-6.9)
Change in level −0.2
P value .56
Biweekly change
Before break point 0.005 (0.004-0.007)
After break point 0.03 (0.02-0.03)
Change in biweekly slope 0.02
P value <.001
Dependent variable mean (SD) 5.9 (1.6)

 

Within health care, the largest gains were for outpatient and ambulatory care (Figure, C), where the percentage of firms using AI increased from 4.6% in 2023 to 8.7% in 2025. Nursing and residential care facilities experienced more limited growth: 3.1% in 2023 to 4.5% in 2025.

 

Discussion

 

Timely estimates of AI use among US firms indicate that, while AI adoption in health care lags behind other sectors, it has been rapidly increasing since 2023, particularly among outpatient and ambulatory organizations. Future research is necessary to understand the reasons and consequences of lower rate of AI adoption in health care, particularly in certain subsectors, such as nursing and residential care facilities.

 

The AI adoption rate observed in this study is lower than estimates in previous national studies focusing on well-resourced organizations5 and hospitals.6 For example, Poon et al5 examined stages of AI adoption in health care organizations from development to full deployment and found that 0% to 48% of these organizations reported full implementation among use case categories. In contrast, the BTOS tracks use of AI in producing goods and services by surveying a broader range of organizations across various sectors and employment sizes, including smaller firms. A study limitation is that BTOS subestimates for hospitals for the study period are suppressed by the US Census Bureau due to confidentiality reasons. Rapid adoption of AI in health care highlights the urgent need for active monitoring and effective regulations to ensure safe and efficient deployment of AI in patient care.

 

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: September 10, 2025.

Published: November 21, 2025. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.5029

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2025 Nguyen TD et al. JAMA Health Forum.

Corresponding Author: Thuy D. Nguyen, PhD, Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (thuydn@umich.edu).

Author Contributions: Dr Nguyen had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Nguyen, Whaley, Simon, Mehrotra, Cantor.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Nguyen, Whaley, Mehta, Yu, McBain, Cantor.

Drafting of the manuscript: Nguyen, Mehta, Cantor.

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Nguyen, Whaley, Simon, Yu, McBain, Mehrotra, Cantor.

Statistical analysis: Nguyen, Whaley, Mehta, Cantor.

Obtained funding: Whaley, Yu.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Whaley, McBain.

Supervision: Yu, McBain, Mehrotra.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Whaley reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging (NIA) during the conduct of the study; grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Arnold Ventures, the Commonwealth Fund, and Patient Rights Advocates; and personal fees from ICER and Analysis Group outside the submitted work. Dr Yu reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) during the conduct of the study and grants from the NIMH, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the National Institute of Nursing Research, and the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities outside the submitted work. Dr Mehrotra reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Black Opal Ventures Advisory Board outside the submitted work. Dr Cantor reported receiving grants from the NIMH during the conduct of the study; grants from the NIA; and personal fees from Chestnut Health, The Aspen Institute, Government Accountability Office, and the NIMH outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This study was funded by grant R01 AG073286 from the NIA (Dr Whaley) and grant R01MH132551 from the NIMH (Dr Yu).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.

Additional Contributions: We thank Maddie Potter, BS, O’Neil School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, for excellent research assistance. She was not financially compensated for her contributions.

 

References

1.

Cutler  DM.  What artificial intelligence means for health care.   JAMA Health Forum. 2023;4(7):e232652. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.2652
ArticlePubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref

2.

Maddox  TM, Embí  P, Gerhart  J, Goldsack  J, Parikh  RB, Sarich  TC.  Generative AI in medicine—evaluating progress and challenges.   N Engl J Med. 2025;392(24):2479-2483. doi:10.1056/NEJMsb2503956PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref

3.

Bonney  K, Breaux  C, Buffington  C,  et al. Tracking firm use of AI in real time: a snapshot from the Business Trends and Outlook Survey. NBER Working Paper. April 2024. Accessed May 21, 2025. https://www.nber.org/papers/w32319

4.

US Census Bureau. Business Trends and Outlook Survey. Accessed May 27, 2025. https://www.census.gov/hfp/btos/data_downloads

5.

Poon  EG, Lemak  CH, Rojas  JC, Guptill  J, Classen  D.  Adoption of artificial intelligence in healthcare: survey of health system priorities, successes, and challenges.   J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2025;32(7):1093-1100. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocaf065PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref

6.

Nong  P, Adler-Milstein  J, Apathy  NC, Holmgren  AJ, Everson  J.  Current use and evaluation of artificial intelligence and predictive models in US hospitals.   Health Aff (Millwood). 2025;44(1):90-98. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2024.00842PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref