How Can My Healthcare Practice Show Up in AI Recommendations?

The shift: from “Dr. Google” to “ask the AI”

For two decades, the healthcare industry adapted to one reality: patients Google their symptoms, Google their doctors, and Google their treatment options before making decisions. The entire healthcare digital marketing ecosystem — SEO, paid search, physician directory listings, patient review management — was built around this behavior.

That ecosystem is breaking.

Gartner forecast in February 2024 that traditional search engine volume will drop 25% by 2026 due to AI chatbots and virtual agents. ChatGPT surpassed 5.8 billion monthly visits by mid-2025, making it one of the top 10 most-visited sites on the planet (Similarweb, 2025). Perplexity AI grew to over 100 million monthly visits by Q4 2024. Google itself now shows AI Overviews for an estimated 84% of informational queries (BrightEdge, 2024) — and health queries are among the most heavily affected categories, given their inherently informational nature.

The healthcare implications are uniquely severe. Google has long classified health queries as YMYL (“Your Money or Your Life”) and applied higher quality standards. But AI chatbots have no such guardrails in practice. Rock Health’s 2025 Consumer Adoption Survey found that 32% of consumers have used AI chatbots for health-related information, double the 16% from a year prior. Among Gen Z and Millennials, adoption exceeds 45% (Rock Health, 2025).

When a patient asks ChatGPT “What’s the best hospital for knee replacement?” or “Who is the best cardiologist near me?”, the answer doesn’t link to your practice website. The traditional funnel — Google search → physician directory → practice website → appointment booking — is being bypassed entirely.

Who AI actually recommends in healthcare

We tested this extensively. Across the major AI platforms, using patient-intent prompts like “What is the best hospital in the US?”, “Who should I see for back pain?”, and “Best telehealth services” — the same names dominate:

* AI mention rates based on structured testing across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, and Gemini using standardized industry queries. Full methodology.

Local hospitals, clinics, and medical practices are almost never recommended unless the user specifically names a city and the institution has exceptional regional brand recognition — think Mass General in Boston or Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles. Even then, they appear below the national heavyweights.

For health information queries, the pattern is even more concentrated. AI leans heavily on WebMD, Healthline, Mayo Clinic’s patient education library, and NIH/MedlinePlus. These four sources account for the vast majority of AI-generated health information — leaving thousands of hospital content marketing teams producing material that AI never surfaces.

This matters because patients don’t distinguish between “information queries” and “provider queries.” A patient who asks ChatGPT about symptoms naturally follows up with “Where should I go for this?” — and the AI recommends the same institutions it cited for the health information.

Why your practice is invisible to AI

AI chatbots generate recommendations based on patterns in their training data — billions of web pages, medical literature, news articles, Reddit threads, review sites, and forum discussions. The brands that appear most frequently and authoritatively in that data are the ones AI recommends.

Consider the math for healthcare:

• Mayo Clinic has approximately 88 million monthly website visits (Similarweb, 2024), is cited in over 170,000 PubMed-indexed research papers, and is mentioned across millions of web pages from news outlets, medical forums, and patient communities.
• WebMD receives approximately 150 million monthly visits and has published over 100,000 medically reviewed health articles since its founding in 1998.
• The average regional hospital website receives 20,000–200,000 monthly visits (Definitive Healthcare, 2024).
• The average medical practice website receives 2,000–20,000 monthly visits.

That’s a 1,000x–50,000x gap in web presence. And web presence is what AI systems learn from.

Four specific factors determine whether AI mentions your healthcare brand:

1. Corpus frequency: How often your institution appears across the web. Mayo Clinic has millions of mentions. A community hospital might have a few thousand. AI recommendation probability is roughly proportional to corpus mention frequency.
2. Medical authority signals: AI models are trained to be especially cautious with health information (what Google calls YMYL). This means they disproportionately favor institutions with strong medical credibility signals — academic affiliations, research citations, board certifications mentioned in structured data, and peer-reviewed publications.
3. Source authority: Mentions in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, or the New York Times carry more weight than mentions on a local health blog. Academic medical centers have a structural advantage here that compounds over time.
4. Content structure: The Princeton/Georgia Tech GEO study (2023) found that content with statistical citations and clear factual claims was up to 40% more likely to be cited by generative AI systems (Aggarwal et al., “GEO: Generative Engine Optimization,” 2023). Most practice websites are built around “schedule an appointment” CTAs, not structured, data-rich health content that AI can extract and cite.

Most healthcare websites — from solo practices to mid-size hospital systems — fail on all four. They have low corpus frequency, limited medical authority signals outside their immediate community, few authoritative third-party mentions, and marketing-heavy content with no structured claims.

The accuracy problem: what AI gets wrong about healthcare

The stakes of AI inaccuracy in healthcare are uniquely high. When AI gets a real estate commission wrong, it costs money. When AI gets medical information wrong, it can cost health outcomes.

And AI gets healthcare information wrong frequently:

• A 2023 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine found that ChatGPT provided appropriate triage recommendations only 51% of the time when presented with clinical vignettes, though the quality of its empathetic communication outperformed physician responses.
• Research from Ben-Gurion University (2024) found AI chatbots gave incorrect or potentially harmful medical advice in approximately 30–40% of cases involving specific conditions and treatment recommendations.
• A study in JAMA Ophthalmology (2023) found ChatGPT answered ophthalmology board-style questions with only 55.8% accuracy.
• The World Health Organization issued a January 2024 advisory warning that “AI-generated health information may be inaccurate or misleading” and urged caution in relying on chatbots for medical decisions.

But the accuracy problem isn’t limited to medical advice. AI also gets basic institutional facts wrong — and this is where it directly harms healthcare businesses:

Insurance and network information

AI frequently provides outdated or fabricated insurance network details. If your hospital recently added or dropped an insurance plan, AI may not reflect the change for months or years. For a patient choosing a provider based on insurance coverage, this is make-or-break information — and AI gets it wrong often enough to redirect patients to competitors.

Physician credentials and specializations

We’ve seen AI chatbots invent physician names, attribute wrong board certifications, list doctors as practicing at hospitals they left years ago, and merge credentials from different physicians with similar names. A Stanford study on AI hallucination found that medical entity hallucination rates exceeded 20% across all major chatbots (Stanford HAI, 2024).

Service lines and capabilities

AI regularly describes hospital service lines that don’t exist, conflates capabilities of different facilities within the same health system, and provides outdated descriptions of telehealth services. If your health system recently launched a new robotic surgery program or specialty clinic, AI likely doesn’t know about it.

Location and access information

Especially problematic for multi-location health systems: AI may provide wrong addresses, phone numbers, or hours for specific clinic locations, or direct patients to closed facilities. Google Business Profile data helps, but AI training data often lags behind real-time directory information by 6–18 months.

Patients are already using AI for health decisions

The adoption curve for AI in healthcare information-seeking is steeper than most providers realize:

• 42% of consumers have used generative AI tools for health-related questions (Accenture 2024 Digital Health Survey).
• 32% of consumers have used AI chatbots for health information, double the rate from a year prior (Rock Health Consumer Adoption Survey, 2025).
• 65% of Gen Z and Millennials say they trust AI-generated health information “somewhat” or “a great deal” (Deloitte 2024 Health Care Consumer Survey).
• Over 230 million people ask health and wellness questions on ChatGPT every week, with 40 million doing so daily (OpenAI, January 2026).

The patient journey is changing in ways that directly threaten traditional provider discovery. Consider a typical path:

1. Patient experiences symptoms → asks ChatGPT “What could cause persistent headaches and fatigue?”
2. AI provides differential diagnosis citing Mayo Clinic and WebMD
3. Patient asks follow-up: “What kind of doctor should I see for this?”
4. AI recommends a neurologist and/or endocrinologist, citing Cleveland Clinic as the authority
5. Patient asks: “Who is the best neurologist near me?”
6. AI either names nationally known specialists or provides generic advice to “check Healthgrades or Zocdoc” — your practice is never mentioned

That entire decision chain — from symptom awareness to provider selection — now happens within a single AI conversation. The patient never visits Google, never sees your SEO-optimized website, and never encounters your paid search ads.

Sources: Pew Research Center (2023); Rock Health (2024); Accenture (2024); McKinsey Digital Health Consumer Survey (2024); Metricus projections based on Gartner search decline forecast. Learn more about how AI visibility is measured.

The $20 billion question: healthcare digital marketing spend

The US healthcare industry spent an estimated $20.3 billion on digital advertising in 2024 (eMarketer/Insider Intelligence). Healthcare and pharma is the fourth-largest digital ad spending vertical in the US, behind retail, financial services, and CPG. That spend includes:

• Paid search: Healthcare is among the most expensive Google Ads categories, with average cost-per-click of $3–$12 for general health terms and $15–$65+ for high-intent procedure keywords like “knee replacement surgeon near me” or “best oncologist in [city]” (WordStream, 2024).
• Physician directory advertising: Healthgrades, Zocdoc, Vitals, and WebMD physician directories collectively generate over $2 billion annually from provider advertising and lead generation (IBISWorld, 2024).
• Hospital system marketing: The average mid-size hospital system (5–15 facilities) spends $5–15 million annually on digital marketing (SHSMD/AHA Benchmarking Study, 2024).
• Telehealth marketing: Teladoc Health alone spent $425 million on marketing in 2023 (Teladoc public filings). Competitors like Amwell, MDLIVE, and Hims & Hers collectively spend hundreds of millions more.

Almost none of this $20 billion is optimized for AI chatbot visibility.

Healthcare organizations have a $20 billion marketing machine pointed at channels that are declining in importance. Google search traffic for health queries is being absorbed by AI Overviews. Physician directory traffic is plateauing. And the fastest-growing patient discovery channel — AI chatbots — has zero paid ad slots to buy.

You can’t buy your way into a ChatGPT recommendation. You have to earn it through authoritative, structured content and broad third-party citations. And right now, only a handful of institutions are earning it.

Telehealth, healthtech, and the AI convergence

The shift to AI-mediated healthcare discovery is colliding with two other megatrends that amplify its impact:

Telehealth market explosion

The global telehealth market was valued at $101.2 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach $455.3 billion by 2030, growing at a 26.4% CAGR (Grand View Research, 2024). In the US, 37% of adults used telehealth services in 2024, up from 11% pre-pandemic (McKinsey, 2024). Telehealth companies are inherently more dependent on digital discovery than traditional practices — patients find them online or not at all. When AI chatbots don’t recommend your telehealth platform, you lose the only discovery channel that matters.

Healthcare AI market growth

The global healthcare AI market was valued at $20.9 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $148.4 billion by 2029, growing at a 48.1% CAGR (MarketsandMarkets, 2024). This includes AI-powered diagnostics, clinical decision support, and patient-facing AI tools. As healthcare companies integrate AI into their own products, they simultaneously become more dependent on external AI systems for patient discovery. The irony: healthtech companies building AI products are often invisible to consumer-facing AI chatbots.

Patient expectations are shifting

A 2024 Accenture study found that 62% of patients expect their healthcare provider to offer digital-first experiences, including AI-powered symptom checkers, chatbot-based scheduling, and virtual triage. Patients who use AI tools in their daily lives increasingly expect healthcare organizations to be visible in those same AI tools. When ChatGPT doesn’t know your health system exists, it signals to AI-native patients that you’re behind the curve.

The convergence of telehealth growth, AI adoption, and shifting patient expectations creates a narrow window of advantage for healthcare organizations that address their AI visibility now. As the market grows and more competitors invest in AI visibility, the cost of catching up increases exponentially. The organizations that build AI authority today will compound that advantage as AI adoption accelerates.

What we found: why some healthcare brands appear and others do not

Metricus data across healthcare AI queries shows a stark divide. Organizations with structured clinical authority signals — published research, Healthgrades profiles with 50+ reviews, active physician directory listings, and Wikipedia entries — appear in AI responses at 5–10x the rate of practices without these markers.

The accuracy dimension compounds the visibility problem. AI chatbots frequently misstate accepted insurance plans, list outdated office hours, confuse providers within the same health system, and cite treatment capabilities that have changed. For healthcare, these are not minor inconveniences — they are patient safety and compliance concerns.

A Metricus AI visibility report audits your healthcare brand across every major AI platform, maps every source feeding those responses, flags factual errors, and delivers a prioritized action plan specific to your practice or health system.

The case for auditing your AI visibility now

The global healthcare AI market is projected to reach $148.4 billion by 2029 (MarketsandMarkets, 2024). The global telehealth market is projected to reach $455.3 billion by 2030 (Grand View Research, 2024). McKinsey estimates generative AI could create $200–360 billion in annual value for the healthcare industry through clinical and administrative applications. Accenture projects that AI-augmented patient engagement tools will influence 50%+ of provider-selection decisions by 2028.

The healthcare organizations that understand their AI visibility now — while competitors are still focused exclusively on Google Ads, physician directory placements, and traditional SEO — will have a structural advantage that compounds over time. Every piece of authoritative clinical content you publish today enters the training data that shapes AI recommendations tomorrow.

The cost of waiting is measurable. In 2019, only 11% of adults used telehealth. By 2024, that number hit 37%. The adoption curve for AI in healthcare decision-making is following the same trajectory — and it’s happening faster because the infrastructure (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini) already exists and patients are already using it.

Healthcare is also uniquely vulnerable to the winner-take-all dynamics of AI recommendations. Because AI chatbots are trained to be conservative with medical information, they default to the most recognized, most-cited institutions. This creates a reinforcement loop: Mayo Clinic gets recommended, patients visit Mayo Clinic’s content, that content gets more citations, AI recommends Mayo Clinic even more. For institutions not already in that loop, breaking in requires deliberate, structured effort. For a parallel case study in another industry, see our analysis of why B2B SaaS brands are invisible in ChatGPT.

Sources: Pew Research Center (2023); Rock Health Digital Health Consumer Survey (2024); Accenture Digital Health Survey (2024); Deloitte Health Care Consumer Survey (2024); Gartner search prediction (Feb 2024); BrightEdge AI Overviews research (2024); JAMA Internal Medicine ChatGPT triage study (2023); Ben-Gurion University AI medical advice study (2024); JAMA Ophthalmology ChatGPT accuracy study (2023); Stanford HAI hallucination report (2024); WHO advisory on AI health information (Jan 2024); OpenAI usage data via The Information (2024); Similarweb traffic estimates (2024); eMarketer US healthcare digital ad spend (2024); WordStream CPC benchmarks (2024); Grand View Research telehealth market report (2024); MarketsandMarkets healthcare AI report (2024); McKinsey healthcare GenAI value estimate (2024); Definitive Healthcare hospital web traffic data (2024); SHSMD/AHA hospital marketing benchmarking (2024); Teladoc Health public filings (2023); IBISWorld physician directory market data (2024); Princeton/Georgia Tech GEO study (2023). AI mention rates based on Metricus internal testing across the major AI platforms (2026). Learn more about how we measure AI visibility.