AS HEALTH CARE PRICES SOAR, MORE AMERICANS TURN TO AI FOR DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT. IT MAY HELP, BUT THERE ARE RISKS THAT CAN'T BE IGNORED

Faced with the high costs and long wait times that accompany getting care in America’s complex medical system, many wish for an alternative.

Beyond all the red tape that comes with navigating care, millions of Americans don’t feel they can access quality care.

In fact, 52% of Americans feel their symptoms are “ignored, dismissed, or not believed,” when seeking medical treatment, according to a 2022 poll survey from MITRE and Harris. (1)

On top of the lackluster care, many Americans end up with a bill in the mail after their visit. Given that, it’s not surprising that many would consider using artificial intelligence (AI) as a health information source.

In a 2025 health survey (2) from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, 79% of U.S. adults say they’re likely to look online for information about a health symptom or condition. And 55% of Americans think that AI-generated health information is somewhat reliable.

Some are turning to AI to assess chronic symptoms, get a preliminary diagnosis, and assess whether a trip to the doctor is really necessary.

Of those using AI to explore medical conditions on Docus, an AI-powered health platform, 46% searched for mental health issues, like depression and anxiety. Additionally, 20% of users searched for skin conditions, 9% for digestive issues, and 12% for headaches.

But as people turn to AI for health concerns, are the potential cost savings worth the risk?

Must Read

• Dave Ramsey warns nearly 50% of Americans are making 1 big Social Security mistake — here’s what it is and 3 simple steps to fix it ASAP
• Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how
• Robert Kiyosaki begs investors not to miss this ‘explosion’ — says this 1 asset will surge 400% in a year

The risks of AI-generated health advice

Although it’s more convenient, AI doesn’t perform as well as physicians when determining a diagnosis.

In a recent study published in the journal npj Digital Medicine, (3) which analyzed the diagnostic performance of physicians and AI, AI models performed significantly worse than expert physicians.

As of writing, an AI diagnosis cannot get you an immediate prescription. While you can use an AI diagnosis as a first step, and something to bring up with your doctor, you’ll still need to see a human physician before receiving a prescription.

But this could change soon. Earlier this year, Congress introduced the Health Technology Act of 2025, which would allow AI to prescribe drugs. If this bill becomes law, AI prescriptions could one day be a reality.

Read More: The average net worth of Americans is a surprising $620,654. But it almost means nothing. Here’s the number that counts (and how to make it skyrocket)

AI health advice may lead to savings. But is it worth it?

When seeking a medical diagnosis, it’s sometimes a complex situation. In many cases, generative AI misses out on potential details, like other symptoms or issues at play.

Ultimately, it’s possible that AI could help you get a diagnosis, but it’s not a guarantee that an AI-generated diagnosis reflects the reality of your medical situation.

If AI gets your diagnosis wrong, the fallout varies based on the situation. For example, if AI inaccurately determines the cause of pain or headaches, you might put off seeing a doctor, and the condition could worsen. But if AI gets your diagnosis wrong and subsequently tells you a solution is to improve your diet, taking action to improve your diet is unlikely to harm you.

If you are without health insurance, it’s true that using AI in place of a doctor would likely be more affordable. For example, many generative AI tools, like ChatGPT, have a free version.

Plus, many at–home tests, with AI-analyzed results, can be more affordable than a visit to a specialist or even doctor-ordered tests. When you factor in potential costs for taking time off work and traveling to the office, it’s clear that AI is often the cheaper option.

But there are limits to what generative AI can do in the medical space. For instance, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn’t discourage the use of home testing and AI tools in managing your health, but it does advise against replacing regular doctor visits with home testing and AI. (4)

For example, using home tests to assess your cholesterol or other health markers could help you spot a problem early, even if a doctor is unlikely to order the tests. AI might also be a good option for patients who have had their symptoms dismissed by multiple doctors in the past. It could at least provide a starting point to work from when following up with a human doctor.

According to the FDA, seeing your doctor in tandem with home testing is best. If you are experiencing symptoms, a doctor is best. And as you age, or if you develop a serious health condition, it’s likely best to see a doctor to manage your care.

For those who want to see a doctor, supported by AI or not, opting for care at outpatient facilities or telehealth options could lead to savings. Additionally, don’t be afraid to negotiate your medical bills, which could significantly lower your costs.

What to read next

• Vanguard reveals what could be coming for U.S. stocks, and it’s raising alarm bells for retirees. Here’s why and how to protect yourself
• This $1B private real estate fund is now accessible to non-millionaires. Here’s how you can get started with as little as $10
• I’m 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement. Should I panic? No — here are 6 easy ways you can catch up (and fast)
• Warren Buffett used 8 simple money rules to turn $9,800 into a stunning $150B — start using them today to get rich (and then stay rich)

Join 200,000+ readers and get Moneywise’s best stories and exclusive interviews first — clear insights curated and delivered weekly. Subscribe now.

Article sources

We rely only on vetted sources and credible third-party reporting. For details, see our editorial ethics and guidelines.

Mitre (1); Annenberg Public Policy Center (2); npj Digital Medicine (3); U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (4).

This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

2026-01-29T14:07:53Z