What’s keeping wearable data out of care? Not doctors, a new AMA survey finds

• A first-of-its-kind AMA survey of 2,222 physicians across six countries finds most doctors use wearables and see clinical value in the data, yet no country tops 6 percent workflow integration.
• The barriers are structural, not motivational. What integrated physicians have that others lack is confidence and patient demand, not better reimbursement or regulatory trust.

Consumer wearables seem to be everywhere, but they still haven’t found their way into the doctor’s office. A new study from the American Medical Association makes the case that physicians aren’t the ones keeping them out.

The AMA’s Center for Digital Health and AI, working with Medscape, surveyed 2,222 physicians in the US, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, and Spain earlier this year — the first study of its kind to look at consumer wearable data across multiple health systems at once. The results show a profession that has embraced the technology personally, but can’t act on it professionally. More than 80 percent of physicians use a wearable themselves, roughly three-quarters say the data can benefit patient care, and only 3 percent have never looked at a patient’s device data. Yet in no country have more than 6 percent of physicians made that data part of their clinical workflows.

“The barriers to broader adoption are structural — not motivational,” AMA CEO John Whyte, MD, MPH, says in the report. “What separates countries moving toward greater integration from those that are lagging is not physician willingness, but the presence of the clinical workflows, payment mechanisms, evidence standards, and support systems needed to turn a growing stream of data into meaningful clinical insight.”

Why no single fix will work: lessons from six countries

Germany has the clearest path forward, thanks to its DiGA program, which allows physicians to prescribe approved digital health apps — including some that draw on wearable data — with the cost covered by statutory insurance. Roughly a third of German physicians surveyed have written such a prescription, and German respondents reported the most confidence anywhere that wearable data can fit into a routine visit.

France, meanwhile, proves that a payment pathway alone isn’t enough. French physicians have reimbursement mechanisms available to them, but almost nobody uses them, and France posted the lowest integration rate in the study at 1 percent. The reason appears to be legal exposure: more than half of French physicians described their liability concerns as severe, the highest of any country surveyed. That anxiety isn’t confined to France. One German cardiologist summed it up, telling surveyors it’s “always about liability” once a device plays a role in diagnosis or treatment.

The U.S. sits somewhere in the middle. American physicians lead the pack on integration at 6 percent, but they’re working around a payment system that wasn’t built for this. Medicare’s remote monitoring codes were designed for cleared medical devices operating under a physician-directed care plan, a definition that leaves consumer gadgets on the outside no matter what features they carry. That hasn’t stopped one in ten US physicians from billing those codes for consumer wearable data anyway, a gray area the AMA wants policymakers to address with clear guidance.

What separates physicians who integrate wearable data from those who don’t

The study’s most useful insight for healthcare organizations comes from comparing the small group of physicians who have integrated wearable data with the larger group that hasn’t. The two groups look nearly identical on regulatory trust and reimbursement sensitivity, the factors most often blamed for slow adoption. Where they differ is confidence: integrated physicians rated the job of turning device readings into clinical decisions as far more doable, and they reported considerably more patients asking them to engage with the data.

That points health systems toward a segmented strategy rather than a one-size-fits-all rollout. Physicians who remain deeply skeptical want evidence first — clinical trials, outcomes data, and a place in specialty society guidelines. Those closer to adoption aren’t waiting on more studies, they want workflow support and a chance to see a colleague make it work inside a normal schedule. As one U.S. neurologist told the surveyors, the data needs to be “available prior to the clinic appointment,” not pieced together while the patient sits waiting.

Specialty matters, too. Cardiologists are out in front, with about one in nine already integrating wearable data and nearly half acting on it weekly, followed by endocrinologists. Primary care physicians, neurologists, and pulmonologists lag behind, citing doubts about relevance and practicality.

Patients could eventually force the issue. For now, fewer than a quarter of physicians hear wearable-related requests from patients even weekly. But the survey found that when patients do ask, physicians respond, a pattern that held in every country and every specialty. The AMA sees that responsiveness as one of the most reliable levers available, suggesting that patient education and better data-sharing tools might accelerate adoption without waiting on payment reform.

Eventually, the industry will likely find its footing here, much as it did with telehealth and remote patient monitoring. The wearables are already on patients’ wrists, and the data is already showing up in exam rooms. The organizations that build the front door for it now will be better positioned than those that keep letting it in through the side.