Rethinking Readiness: What 32% Tells Us About AI in Primary Care
Recent data indicates that 32% of individuals are somewhat or very comfortable with AI-led appointments in primary care settings. While…
A recent survey caught my attention: 32% of individuals say they feel somewhat or very comfortable with AI-led appointments in primary care settings. Depending on your perspective, that number might feel small—or surprisingly large. Some might be quick to point out that nearly 70% of people remain skeptical or uncomfortable. But I think we’re asking the wrong question.
Rather than focusing on the majority who aren’t ready yet, we should be thinking seriously about the nearly one-third who are. That’s not a niche. It’s a foundation. And in the strained, resource-limited landscape of modern primary care, that 32% could represent the beginning of meaningful, immediate relief.
Primary care physicians are burning out. They’re managing increasingly complex patients, larger panels, and an unrelenting administrative burden. The current system isn’t sustainable—not for them, and not for the patients who rely on them. If we could responsibly shift even a third of routine care interactions to AI-supported or AI-led models—screenings, basic triage, medication refills, follow-up instructions—that could free up significant capacity. Physicians could focus more on complex diagnostics, chronic disease management, and the nuanced, deeply human conversations that technology can’t replace.
It’s not about displacing clinicians. It’s about removing unnecessary friction from their day and creating more space for the work only they can do.
There’s another consequence of embracing this 32% that’s easy to miss: we don’t just improve care for those open to AI—we improve access for everyone else, too.
In most clinics I’ve worked in or observed, wait times aren’t just a scheduling issue—they’re a reflection of imbalance between demand and capacity. If AI tools can safely and appropriately serve patients who are already comfortable using them, we reduce the load on physical clinics. That means shorter waits, more availability, and less pressure for those who need or prefer traditional, in-person care. Embracing digital pathways doesn’t have to mean forcing uniformity—it can be a way of expanding options across the board.
Of course, for some, AI still feels optional. A nice-to-have. A convenience. But I don’t see it that way. Given the scale of the challenges we face—clinician burnout, healthcare deserts, aging populations, and rising costs—AI is no longer just interesting. It’s necessary. A system that can’t meet demand is already failing, no matter how well-intentioned its practitioners. Technology, when designed and deployed thoughtfully, can buy us time. It can buy us space. In some cases, it may even buy us lives.
We need to shift our focus. Instead of asking why 68% of patients aren’t ready for AI, let’s ask: what can we build right now for the 32% who are? What would it look like to design safe, meaningful, culturally aware systems that serve them well—and in doing so, relieve the pressure on everyone else?
That’s not speculation. That’s action. That’s implementation.
I’m not advocating for a rush to automation or a blind embrace of whatever’s new. What I’m calling for is more thoughtful experimentation, more shared learning, and a deeper commitment to listening—both to the patients who are ready, and to those who are not. Their concerns are valid. But so is their time. And right now, time is something our healthcare system cannot afford to waste.
Let’s stop waiting for perfection or universal comfort before we act. Let’s start building for those who are ready—because they are ready. And in doing so, we might just create the breathing room this system desperately needs to care better for everyone.
Dr. Salim Afshar