AI Stipends for Physicians: What 1,000+ Doctors Say Hospitals Should Pay

For most of modern healthcare history, new technologies have entered medicine through institutions first. Hospitals purchased systems, negotiated enterprise contracts, and asked physicians to adapt. Individual doctors rarely paid out of pocket for core tools required to do their jobs.

AI is breaking that pattern.

According to the 2025 Physicians AI Report, based on responses from more than 1,000 physicians across 106 specialties, an overwhelming 89% of doctors believe hospitals should provide dedicated funding for AI tools. This is not a fringe opinion. It is a near-consensus signal that AI has crossed an important threshold from optional experiment to essential professional infrastructure.

What physicians are asking for is not early-adopter indulgence. They are asking for formal recognition that AI has become part of how modern medicine is practiced and that the financial responsibility for these tools should not quietly fall on individual clinicians.

Why AI Funding Is No Longer A “Nice-To-Have”

Physicians are already using AI in meaningful, daily ways. They rely on it to reduce documentation burden, manage administrative overload, summarize information, and preserve attention for patient care. In many cases, these tools directly benefit healthcare organizations by improving efficiency, throughput, and clinician availability.

Yet today, much of this value is created through personal subscriptions, quietly paid for by physicians themselves.

From the clinician’s perspective, this creates a growing tension. If AI improves productivity and system performance, but physicians must personally fund access, then AI begins to feel less like support and more like an uncompensated expectation.

That is why doctors are not merely asking for access to a single approved platform. They are calling for explicit, dedicated funding, a stipend that acknowledges AI as a legitimate and necessary part of professional practice.

What Physicians Say Hospitals Should Actually Pay

The report goes beyond abstract support for funding and asks a very practical question: how much should hospitals contribute? The answers reveal both restraint and realism.

The most common expectation: $0–$500 per year (33%)

The largest share of physicians favors a relatively modest annual stipend. This group is not asking organizations to underwrite expansive AI stacks or experimental technologies. Instead, they are asking for enough funding to cover basic, everyday tools—a general AI assistant, a documentation aid, or a research and summarization platform.

What this group is really asking for is recognition. A stipend at this level signals that the organization understands AI is part of the job and is willing to share responsibility for its cost.

The middle ground: meaningful support for real usage

Beyond the lowest tier, many physicians express expectations in the hundreds to low thousands of dollars per year. These responses reflect a deeper level of AI integration into daily workflows, particularly for clinicians who rely on documentation tools, specialty platforms, or multiple AI systems simultaneously.

For these physicians, AI is not an occasional convenience. It is embedded into how they manage time, reduce cognitive load, and sustain performance in demanding clinical environments. Funding at this level acknowledges that one-size-fits-all access does not reflect the realities of modern medical practice.

The high end: 10% request $10,000+ annually

Perhaps the most eye-opening finding is that 10% of physicians believe hospitals should fund AI at $10,000 or more per year.

At first glance, this figure may seem excessive. But when examined closely, it reflects a subset of clinicians whose roles are unusually complex or documentation-heavy, often spanning clinical care, leadership, education, and research.

For these physicians, AI is not simply a time-saver. It is an enabling infrastructure comparable to advanced software, specialized equipment, or intensive professional development. Their responses highlight a future in which AI is not peripheral to medical work, but deeply intertwined with it.

Why This Is Becoming A Compensation And Benefits Issue

Historically, hospitals have treated technology as an institutional expense and physician productivity as an individual responsibility. AI complicates this distinction.

Physicians are already demonstrating bottom-up adoption, choosing tools that work for them regardless of institutional endorsement. At the same time, the report shows widespread dissatisfaction with employer-led AI strategies and limited physician influence over tool selection.

In this environment, stipends serve an important purpose. They represent a middle path between rigid standardization and unchecked shadow IT. Rather than forcing clinicians into tools that may not fit their workflows, stipends acknowledge diversity in practice while maintaining organizational oversight through policy and guardrails.

From an HR and compensation perspective, AI stipends increasingly resemble:

• CME allowances
• Licensing and certification support
• Professional development budgets

In each case, organizations recognize that supporting physician effectiveness ultimately benefits patients and the system as a whole.

Why Forward-Thinking Organizations Are Taking This Seriously

Hospitals that treat AI stipends as a strategic issue not a perk stand to gain several advantages.

First, recruitment and retention. As AI becomes standard in medical practice, physicians will compare employers based on how well they support modern workflows. Dedicated funding sends a clear signal that the organization is investing in clinician success.

Second, trust and transparency. Explicit stipends reduce resentment and uncertainty around expectations. Physicians know what support exists and what boundaries apply.

Third, better governance. Funding AI openly allows organizations to define acceptable categories, data standards, and privacy expectations—without dictating a single tool for every clinician.

What Physicians Are Really Asking For

Importantly, physicians are not demanding unlimited budgets or total autonomy. The survey responses suggest a far more reasonable request:

They want AI to be treated as legitimate professional infrastructure, supported proportionally to its role in their work. They want flexibility where workflows differ, clarity where boundaries matter, and fairness in how productivity gains are shared.

Above all, they want acknowledgment that AI is no longer optional, and that paying for it personally is not sustainable.

AI Stipends Are The Next Frontier Of Physician Support

The message from more than 1,000 physicians is remarkably consistent.

With 89% calling for dedicated AI funding, hospitals are being asked to rethink how they define essential tools, professional support, and modern medical practice. AI stipends are emerging not as luxury benefits, but as a new category of compensation and respect.

Organizations that respond proactively will not only see stronger AI adoption, they will demonstrate alignment with the realities of frontline care.

In an era where physician trust is fragile and burnout remains high, recognizing AI as shared infrastructure may be one of the simplest and most meaningful, signals healthcare organizations can send.

Find out what physicians think about AI. Download the 2025 AI Physicians Report.