Healthcare technology adoption is high across U.S. hospitals and physician practices, especially for electronic health records and patient access. The larger differences appear in interoperability, patient-generated data, automated public health reporting, and the infrastructure needed to exchange information reliably.
Contents
- EHR adoption among U.S. clinicians
- Patient portals and digital access
- APIs and interoperability
- Electronic public health reporting
- Reporting automation and implementation barriers
- Medical devices and healthcare AI
- International digital health policy
EHR adoption among U.S. clinicians
Electronic health records are established technology in U.S. clinical settings. In 2024, 95.0% of U.S. office-based physicians had adopted EHR systems, according to the CDC’s NEHRS Results and Publications. Adoption of any EHR system was therefore higher than adoption of a certified system: 83.6% of U.S. office-based physicians used a certified EHR system in the same year.
These figures describe U.S. office-based physicians, not every clinician or every healthcare organization. They also distinguish general EHR adoption from use of a certified EHR system. That distinction matters when evaluating whether a practice has the technical foundation for structured exchange, reporting, and patient-facing digital services.
Hospital technology statistics show a similarly broad baseline for patient-facing functions. The report Growth of Health IT-Enabled Patient Engagement Capabilities Among U.S. Hospitals: 2021-2024 found that 99% of U.S. non-federal acute care hospitals enabled patients to electronically view health information in 2024. The same report found that 96% enabled patients to download health information, 95% enabled electronic access to clinical notes, and 92% enabled secure messaging with providers.
Those capabilities represent different levels of digital engagement. Viewing information is more basic than moving it into another system, and messaging is different from allowing an outside app to use structured data. The spread between these capabilities helps explain why high EHR adoption does not automatically mean frictionless interoperability.
Patient portals and digital access
Patient access statistics show that portal technology is reaching most people, although access and use vary by population and method. In 2024, 65% of individuals nationally were offered and accessed their online medical records or patient portal, according to Individuals’ Access and Use of Patient Portals and Smartphone Health Apps, 2024. Among individuals managing a recent cancer diagnosis, the share was 75%.
Smartphones and apps have become a larger part of this access pattern. App-based access to online medical records rose from 38% in 2020 to 57% in 2024. The measurement covers the change across those two years; it does not establish why the increase occurred.
Multiple portals remain common. In 2024, 59% of individuals nationally had multiple online medical records or patient portals. Yet only 7% used a portal organizing app to combine records from different portals. For comparison, 2% used a portal organizing app in 2022. The increase indicates greater use of these organizing tools, while the 2024 level shows that most people with multiple portals still did not use one.
The hospital-side capabilities are broader than the individual-side organizing behavior. Hospitals may make records viewable, downloadable, or shareable, while patients still face the practical task of finding information across organizations and accounts. In 2024, 84% of U.S. non-federal acute care hospitals enabled patients to transmit health information to a third party, but only 56% enabled patients to import records from other organizations into the portal. The two measures concern different directions of exchange and should not be treated as equivalent.
APIs and interoperability
Application programming interfaces are a central mechanism for connecting EHRs with apps and other technology. Hospital Use of APIs to Enable Data Sharing between EHRs and Third-Party Technology reported that approximately 9 in 10 hospitals enabled patient access to health information via an API in 2024. Seven in 10 used standards-based APIs for patient access.
The hospital engagement report provides more specific detail. In 2024, 81% of U.S. non-federal acute care hospitals enabled app access using EHR API specifications, and 70% enabled access using HL7 FHIR app specifications. These figures describe different technical categories in the source reporting, so the EHR API and HL7 FHIR percentages should be read as separate indicators rather than combined into one total.
Patient-generated data remains less mature than basic record access. About two-thirds of hospitals enabled patient-generated health data submission to the EHR in 2024, according to the API report. About half used standards-based APIs to enable that submission. The hospital engagement report measured 62% enabling patients to submit patient-generated data through apps.
| Capability measured in 2024 | Share of hospitals |
|---|---|
| Patient access to health information via an API | Approximately 90% |
| Standards-based API for patient access | 70% |
| Patient-generated health data submission to the EHR | About two-thirds |
| Standards-based API for patient-generated data submission | About half |
| Import records from other organizations into the portal | 56% |
The pattern is consistent across the measures: basic access is more widespread than standardized exchange and patient-generated data workflows. That difference is important for remote monitoring, app-based care, and any service that depends on information arriving from outside the hospital’s own system.
Electronic public health reporting
Hospitals also use health information technology to report data to public health authorities. In 2024, 97% of non-federal acute care hospitals electronically reported immunization data, while 94% electronically reported syndromic surveillance data and 94% electronically reported laboratory data. The same source, Electronic Public Health Reporting Among Non-Federal Acute Care Hospitals, 2024, reported electronic case data reporting at 84%.
Other reporting types were less common. In 2024, 81% of hospitals electronically reported public health registry data, 74% electronically reported clinical data registry data, and 62% electronically reported hospital capacity data.
The historical comparison in that report shows uneven change between 2021 and 2024:
| Electronic reporting type | 2021 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|
| Case data | 53% | 84% |
| Public health registry data | 65% | 81% |
| Clinical data registry data | 50% | 74% |
| Hospital capacity data | 64% | 62% |
Case data reporting increased from 53% in 2021 to 84% in 2024. Public health registry reporting increased from 65% to 81%, and clinical data registry reporting increased from 50% to 74%. Hospital capacity reporting moved in the opposite direction, from 64% in 2021 to 62% in 2024. These are reported percentages for the two measurement years, not a forecast of future reporting.
Reporting automation and implementation barriers
The route used to submit information matters as much as whether a hospital reports electronically. In 2024, 86% of hospitals submitted immunization registry data directly from the EHR. Direct EHR submission was also reported for 82% of hospitals for syndromic surveillance data, 81% for electronic lab reporting data, and 71% for electronic case reporting data.
Direct EHR submission was less common for several other categories. The 2024 shares were 49% for public health registry data, 47% for antimicrobial use and resistance data, 45% for clinical data registry data, and 21% for hospital capacity data. A high electronic reporting rate can therefore coexist with a lower rate of direct EHR integration.
Implementation challenges were widespread. In 2024, 81% of hospitals reported at least one challenge to electronic public health reporting. Hospitals that reported challenges experienced about three challenges out of seven on average. The most frequently cited issue was the technical complexity of interfaces, transmission, or submission, reported by 55% of hospitals. Another 50% said public health agencies lacked the capacity to electronically receive information.
Additional barriers included onboarding that was too cumbersome, reported by 33% of hospitals, and cost-related interface, transmission, or submission challenges, also reported by 33%. Difficulty extracting relevant information from the EHR affected 25% of hospitals. Fourteen percent said different vocabulary standards than the public health agency made reporting difficult, and 14% lacked capacity to electronically send information. Nineteen percent reported no major challenges for any reporting type.
Together, these figures describe a technology and coordination problem, not only an adoption problem. Electronic reporting may be available while still requiring complex interfaces, manual preparation, costly connections, or compatible standards on both sides.
Medical devices and healthcare AI
The healthcare technology landscape also includes regulated medical devices and devices using artificial intelligence or machine learning. In 2024, the FDA updated its authorized AI/ML-enabled medical device list to 1,016 devices, according to FDA Roundup: December 20, 2024. The figure is a count of devices on the updated authorized list for that reporting point.
The FDA’s Annual Report recorded 120 novel medical devices authorized in 2024. Separately, 30,120 medical device establishments were registered with the FDA in fiscal year 2024, according to Report to Congress Annual Report on Inspections. The calendar year and fiscal year references are different measurement periods.
Device oversight also involves post-market reporting. The FDA’s FDA MDR Data Files states that it receives over 2 million medical device reports of suspected deaths, serious injuries, and malfunctions each year. This is an annual volume described as over 2 million, not a count of confirmed device-caused events.
These measures should not be added together. The AI/ML-enabled device list, novel device authorizations, registered establishments, and medical device reports describe different parts of the regulatory system and use different units.
International digital health policy
OECD data show that national policy capacity does not always translate into uniform technical standards. Digital health at a glance: Health at a Glance 2023 reported that 35 OECD countries had a digital health-related strategy, and 34 of those countries articulated clear goals.
The same OECD source found that 38% of surveyed countries reported not having any standards or not having a vendor certification process for EHR systems. About 60% reported messaging standards as part of the EHR certification process. In total, 11 OECD countries embedded messaging standards, clinical terminology, and national EHR requirements in certification.
The figures describe different dimensions of national readiness. A country can have a digital health strategy and clear goals while still lacking a complete standards or vendor-certification framework. Certification may include messaging standards without embedding all three elements identified in the source.
The OECD report also referenced the Global AI Index, which covered 62 countries, including 36 OECD countries. In the report’s Global AI Index table, the United States ranked first overall. That ranking is specific to the cited table and index coverage; it is not a measure of every aspect of healthcare technology adoption.
For healthcare readers, the central pattern across these statistics is clear: digital foundations are widespread, but the practical value of technology depends on exchange standards, direct integration, patient usability, and the capacity of connected organizations to receive and interpret data.