Darwin's Our Take: Nearly one-third of U.S. adults use AI to get health information, surveys show

Two separate surveys indicate that about a third of adults in the U.S. have used AI chatbots to seek health-related information, and one of the surveys found that the percentage of users had doubled since the previous year.

These findings reflect widespread use of AI among health care consumers even before the launch of several health-specific AI chatbots since the start of this year.

The earlier survey of the two, the 2025 Consumer Adoption of Digital Health Survey, was conducted by Rock Health between Dec. 1, 2025, and Dec. 23, 2025. It included 8,000 respondents.

In this survey, 32% of respondents said they had used AI chatbots to get health information at some point. Just 16% of respondents to the same survey a year earlier said they had done so.

Notably, of the 32% responding to the most recent survey who said they used AI chatbots for health information, 64% said they engage at least weekly for health-related purposes.

This survey asked which specific AI chatbots the respondents had used (they could choose more than one). ChatGPT was used most often (23%), followed by Google’s AI assistant, Gemini (15%). Only 5% said they had used a chatbot from a provider.

Among the reasons respondents said they had turned to an AI chatbot, the most common was to search for treatment options based on a diagnosis (59%). Almost as many (56%) used an AI chatbot to find a diagnosis based on symptoms. A similar share (55%) sought information about prescription drugs and/or their side effects.

Other common reasons included queries about general wellness, lifestyle, and prevention (46%), help interpreting lab or imaging results (41%), and managing ongoing health conditions (34%).

Up to a third of respondents said they used AI chatbots to prepare question before an appointment; look for specific providers or clinics; get information on insurance coverage or costs; or manage mental health or stress.

Gen Z adults and millennials (approximately age 45 or younger) were almost twice as likely to report using AI chatbots for health purposes as compared with Gen Xers (approximately ages 46-61), and Gen Xers were about twice as likely to report using them as compared with baby boomers (approximately ages 62-80).

The survey found that AI chatbot use was higher among racial and ethnic minorities than among white respondents (41% vs. 27%), even when controlling for other demographic variables. Men were only slightly more likely than women to use AI bots for health (34% vs. 30%). Income and education level did not appear to influence usage.

Most users (81%) reported taking one or more of the following steps after engaging with the AI chatbot: searching for more information (42%), consulting a provider (40%), discussing the matter with family or friends (35%), trying a new behavior (32%), advising someone else (26%), changing or making an appointment (22%), and adjusting medications (18%).  

The newer survey, the KFF Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust, was conducted from Feb. 24 to March 2 among a nationally representative sample of 1,343 U.S. adults.

Similar to the Rock Health survey, 32% of respondents said they had used an AI tool for health information in the past year. Nearly twice as many reported using AI for information pertaining to physical health (29%) versus mental health (16%).

By comparison, 29% of respondents said they had used social media to get information on physical or mental health.

This survey also reflected greater use of AI among younger respondents (under age 30) than among those ages 50 and older, especially for mental health information.

As may be expected, reported use of AI was higher among uninsured adults than among those with health insurance.

The respondents’ most common reasons for using AI were wanting to get quick or immediate information or support (65%), seeking information before deciding whether to see a provider (41%), and feeling more comfortable looking up health information privately (36%).

Additional reasons included not being able to afford seeing a health professional (19%) and either not having a regular physician or not being able to get an appointment (18%). Younger respondents and those earning less than $40,000 annually were most likely to cite the cost of care and lack of access to care as reasons for turning to AI.

A considerable share of those who reported using AI did not follow up with a health professional afterward — 42% who asked about physical health and 58% who asked about mental health did not follow up with a provider.  

About 4 in 10 of the respondents who said they had used AI for health information reported uploading personal medical information, such as test results or physician notes, into an AI tool or chatbot to get personalized explanations or advice regarding their health. According to KFF’s calculations, this translates into 13% of the public overall.

According to KFF, 77% of the public has expressed concern about the privacy of the personal medical information provided to AI tools. Even among those who have already shared personal health information with AI, 65% say they have such concerns.

OUR TAKE: Compared with AI adoption among health care organizations, the public is “experimenting with AI much more freely,” the authors of the Rock Health report noted, adding that AI chatbots “are the latest chapter” in consumers’ use of digital health channels and tools.

“Consumers are already beginning to arrive at clinical encounters AI-informed, feeling a step ahead of a comparatively slow and steady system,” the authors wrote.

Many in the U.S. lack access to affordable care, even if they have health insurance. Those who can access care often have to wait weeks or months to see a provider, particularly if they’re a new patient.

It’s no surprise that so many are turning to AI for health information, despite having concerns about privacy or the reliability of the information they find.

It’s interesting to note, though, that more than 1 in 5 respondents who reported using AI for health said they’ve hidden it from their doctor, according to a survey conducted in February on behalf of Zocdoc.

The survey included 1,186 U.S. adults and 1,000 U.S. providers, which included patient-facing doctors, physicians assistants, and nurses.

The survey report, titled The AI-Informed Patient, revealed that the most common reasons respondents cited for not divulging their use of AI were concerns their doctor would judge them (39%) or their doctor wouldn’t like it (38%).

But 78% of the providers surveyed said they want patients to let them know when they’ve consulted AI, and 77% said they have a positive attitude about patients using AI for their medical concerns. Almost as many — 72% — said they can tell when a patient has used AI.

Most providers who participated in the survey said AI-informed patients tend to ask more thoughtful questions and are more engaged in their care, and 60% said they would prefer their patients use AI over doing a Google search.

Nonetheless, 83% of providers reported having to correct information patients received using AI tools.

The vast majority of patients surveyed (88%) said they felt sure about their next steps after using AI. Yet 62% admitted that AI advice could provide a false sense of security. And, 70% said they would rather receive medical guidance from a physician than from AI.  

Dr. Oliver Kharraz, Zocdoc’s founder and CEO, wrote in the report’s foreword: “Handled openly, AI can strengthen the patient-provider relationship, helping patients feel more prepared and making visits more productive. Handled secretly, it can create friction and confusion, and erode trust.”  

What else you need to know

Cencora plans to increase its presence in ophthalmology by acquiring EyeSouth Partners’ retina business for $1.1 billion. The transaction is expected to close after Cencora’s fiscal year ends in September. EyeSouth’s affiliated retina specialists will join Cencora’s Retina Consultants of America (RCA), a management services organization (MSO) of retina specialists. (Cencora paid $4.4 billion for an 85% stake in RCA at the start of last year.)

EyeSouth Partners, an MSO based in Atlanta, has more than 60 practice affiliations. Its network includes more than 400 eye care specialists who provide services at 278 locations across 14 states. Cencora’s acquisition of EyeSouth is subject to the usual closing conditions, including regulatory approvals.

The Big Three drug wholesalers have been aggressively expanding their reach into specialty care. Last year, McKesson paid $2.5 billion for a controlling interest of approximately 70% in Core Ventures, the business and administrative services organization established by Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute, and $850 million for an 80% controlling interest in Prism Vision Holdings, a retina MSO.

Cardinal Health paid approximately $2.8 billion last year for an approximate 73% stake in GI Alliance, the largest physician-led gastroenterology MSO in the U.S., and $1.1 billion for Advanced Diabetes Supply Group, a national direct-to-patient provider of diabetes medical supplies. Cencora acquired a 35% stake in OneOncology for $2.1 billion in 2023 and acquired the remaining stake in February for approximately $4.6 billion.  

Merck signed a definitive agreement to acquire Terns Pharmaceuticals, a clinical-stage oncology firm based in Foster City, Calif., for an approximate equity value of $6.7 billion, or about $5.7 billion net of acquired cash. If the transaction is completed, Merck will gain TERN-701, an investigational targeted therapy that Merck’s CEO, Robert Davis, described in a press release as “a potential best-in-class candidate for the treatment of certain patients with chronic myeloid leukemia.”

A once-daily oral allosteric BCR::ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, TERN-701 has shown “promising activity” in early-stage clinical development, Merck noted in the release, including responses in patients with high disease burden who have already received multiple lines of therapy.

Both companies’ boards have approved the acquisition, which is subject to customary closing conditions, including approval by regulatory authorities and Terns’ shareholders. Merck expects to complete the acquisition in the second quarter. Multiple analysts believe the deal undervalues Terns and its lead asset, however, and some said a Big Pharma rival could attempt to unravel the deal with a better offer. In that case, Terns would owe Merck a $235 million termination fee.

Gilead Sciences agreed to acquire Ouro Medicines for approximately $1.7 billion in cash up front. Ouro, a privately held, San Francisco-based biotech that launched last year, develops “immune reset therapies” for autoimmune diseases. The deal includes another $500 million in potential milestone payments.

Gilead noted in the announcement that it is negotiating a potential R&D collaboration with Galapagos as part of the acquisition. (Gilead has a 25% stake in Galapagos.) Galapagos would cover half of the upfront acquisition fee and half of the milestone payments. In return, Galapagos would absorb Ouro’s operating assets and retain Ouro’s employees. Gilead and Galapagos would develop Ouro’s lead asset, OM336 (gamgertamig), together, sharing costs and eventually splitting royalties.

Gilead said the investigational therapy — a T cell engager that targets two immune cell proteins, BCMA and CD3 — is “designed to enable rapid and deep B cell depletion following a limited subcutaneously administered treatment course.” OM336 is being evaluated in early-stage clinical studies as a treatment for autoimmune hemolytic anemia, immune thrombocytopenia and other diseases.

Ouro in-licensed OM336 from Keymed Biosciences, a Chinese biotech that will receive about $250 million if the acquisition is finalized. Gilead did not provide an anticipated time frame for completing the transaction, which is subject to customary closing conditions.

CMS unveiled a pilot payment model for providers who serve children and young adults (up to age 21) enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program who have or are at risk for developing complex medical or behavioral needs. Called the Accelerating State Pediatric Innovation Readiness and Effectiveness Model, or ASPIRE, the voluntary model will run for 10 years. Participating Medicaid providers will assume accountability for the quality and cost of care for these patients, offering care coordination and other support while also incorporating quality measures focused on outcomes. According to CMS, the model will help identify and address the needs of these patients at an early stage, allowing for timely intervention so patients can “thrive in the least restrictive settings” and benefit from improved quality of life. CMS said it intends to release a Notice of Funding Opportunity later this year to solicit participation from up to five state Medicaid agencies.

CVS is opening its first pharmacy-only location on March 30 in Chicago, multiple news outlets reported last week. The company announced a year ago that it planned to open a limited number of apothecary-style CVS pharmacies in select locations. Based on an article CVS Health posted on its website in August, these “small-format pharmacies” will be approximately one-fourth the size of standard CVS stores. They will offer the same essential health-related services as traditional CVS stores, including immunizations, along with a limited selection of health-and-wellness products. Items such as snacks, cosmetics, and greeting cards will not be available.

Duke University Health System will have a new CEO as of May 1. Dr. David Zaas, who is currently president and CEO of Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist (part of Advocate Health), succeeds Dr. Craig Albanese, who left Duke in September to join Oakland, Calif.-based Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Zaas previously held various leadership roles at Duke from 2001 to 2020, according to the announcement.

What we’re reading

The Oncology Care Model and Medicare Payments, Utilization, and Quality. JAMA, 3.25.26 (abstract available; subscription required for full access)

Rewriting the Narrative on the Oncology Care Model. JAMA, 3.25.26 (accompanying editorial; abstract available; subscription required for full access)

Signs Of ‘Most Favored Nation’ Impact: What Experts Are Looking For. Health Affairs, 3.20.26