Electronic Health Reporter

By Dr. Wael Khouli, MD, MBA  |  Co-Founder & CMO, Authsnap, Inc.

I just came off the stage at NPAC 2026 in Charlotte, where I presented to a room full of physician advisors on practical AI strategies for expanding bandwidth. The questions afterward told me everything I needed to know about where this profession stands right now.

Nobody asked whether AI was coming. They already know it is. They asked something more honest than that: how do we use it without losing the thing that makes us valuable in the first place?

That is the right question, and it deserves a real answer.

The Volume Problem Nobody Wants to Say Out Loud

Physician advisors are being asked to do more reviewing, more documentation, more peer-to-peer justification, and more appeals work than at any point in this profession’s history. Payer policies are more granular. Medicare Advantage utilization management has expanded into services that were once routinely approved. The documentation bar for medical necessity keeps rising.

The volume that now lands on a physician advisor’s desk has outpaced what any human can sustainably handle at the quality this work demands. That is not a criticism. It is arithmetic. And it is the honest starting point for any serious conversation about AI in this space.

The physician advisors I talk to are not afraid of AI replacing them. They are exhausted by a volume of work that was never supposed to be theirs, and they want to know whether AI can take some of it back.

There is a second category that gets even less attention: the work that never gets done at all. The cases that go unreviewed, the appeals that are never filed, the denials written off because there was no bandwidth to fight them. That work does not show up in a productivity report, but it is where revenue and patient access quietly leak out. With AI assistance, physician advisors and utilization management specialists can finally reach the work they could never get to before, not just move faster through the work already on the desk.

What AI Can Actually Do, and What It Cannot

Let me be specific, because vague claims about AI in healthcare help no one.

AI is genuinely good at the extractive, pattern-matching layer of physician advisor work: ingesting a clinical record and identifying the relevant diagnoses, treatment history, and documentation gaps; cross-referencing that information against payer-specific criteria; and generating a structured, evidence-based argument that a physician advisor can then review, refine, and sign off on. Done manually, that work takes one to two hours per case. AI brings it under ten minutes.

What AI cannot do is the clinical judgment underneath. Reading what a patient presentation actually means. Knowing when a payer’s stated criteria do not reflect the clinical reality of a complex case. Understanding the institutional context that shapes a particular denial pattern. Recognizing when the documentation tells a different story than the billing codes. That layer is not automatable, and any tool that claims otherwise is either wrong or selling something.

The physician advisors who will define this profession are the ones who understand exactly where that line sits. They use AI aggressively on one side of it and protect their judgment fiercely on the other.

The HIPAA Conversation Nobody Should Skip

I made this explicit at NPAC and I will make it explicit here: responsible AI adoption in physician advisory work requires HIPAA-compliant infrastructure, full stop. Not as an afterthought. Not as a future-state aspiration. Clinical documentation is protected health information, and any AI tool processing it needs to operate in a closed, compliant environment with audit trails and explainability built into the architecture.

The tools that earn physician advisor trust are the ones that make compliance visible, not the ones that ask you to trust a black box. When an organization deploys generic AI that lacks clinical specificity or payer fluency, the result is predictable: appeal quality drops, risk exposure rises, and the physician advisor ends up doing more cleanup than the manual process would have required. That is not a technology failure. It is a selection failure.

What Mastery Looks Like From Here

The physician advisors getting this right share a posture. They treat AI as a tool that earns trust through performance, not as a default answer to a capacity problem.

They verify AI-generated content before it goes out. They understand the clinical logic behind the output well enough to catch it when it is wrong. And they spend the time AI gives back on the work that requires judgment: the peer-to-peer conversations, the complex case reviews, the pattern recognition across a portfolio of denials that signals something systematic happening upstream.

AI bandwidth paired with physician judgment is the standard this profession is moving toward. The advisors who master it will handle case volumes that would have broken the old model. The ones who do not will fall further behind with every payer policy update.

The Honest Bottom Line

AI is not going to replace physician advisors. The clinical judgment, payer fluency, and institutional knowledge that make a great physician advisor valuable cannot be replicated by any model available today. But the administrative layer sitting on top of that judgment, the documentation extraction, the criteria cross-referencing, the initial appeal construction, can and should be automated.

That is not a threat to the profession. It is what gives the profession its future back. The physician advisors who embrace it will do the most important work of their careers. The ones who resist it will spend those same years buried in paperwork.

One caution belongs at the end of this. Moving forward, it will be difficult for physician advisors to stay at the forefront without becoming genuinely proficient at deploying AI in the right way and the right place. That proficiency runs in both directions. It means applying these tools where they create real leverage, and it means refusing to over-rely on them. The advisors who stop validating the output, who let AI quietly absorb the clinical judgment that only they can own, will not lead this profession. They will be exposed by it. Mastery is using AI aggressively while keeping a firm hand on the parts that must stay human.

I know which group I would rather be in.