News: Clinicians mostly agreed with AI prescribing pilot’s renewal recommendations

Utah’s Department of Commerce released data on its AI prescribing pilot, which shows that human clinicians who reviewed the AI system’s renewal recommendation most often agreed with it.

The pilot launched in January 2026 and uses Doctronic’s AI system to autonomously renew prescriptions. The system can process 30-, 60-, or 90-day renewals for medications that a licensed provider has already prescribed, as per the agreement between the AI vendor and the state of Utah.

The AI prescribing pilot raised safety concerns when it was launched. In April 2026, the state’s Medical Licensing Board sent a letter to the Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy, stating that it was not made aware of the agreement launching the pilot until after the fact. The board requested the program to be suspended, however the Office of Artificial Intelligence responded by highlighting that the pilot is in phase one and that during said stage, every AI recommendation will be sent to human physicians for review.

The pilot’s goal is to lighten clinician workload, improve medication continuity, and expand patient access by delegating repetitive healthcare tasks to AI systems, according to the Utah Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy. In its response to the Utah Medical Licensing Board, the office reiterated that the AI system is “strictly prohibited from handling controlled substances, modifying treatment plans or initiating new prescriptions.”

According to the newly released data, Doctronic’s AI recommended prescription renewal in 72% of cases, which then went to a human physician for review. In the remaining 28% of cases, AI escalated the case to a human physician due to case characteristics, including the need for new lab work or complications.

Among the cases where the AI system suggested a prescription renewal, the reviewing physician agreed 91% of the time that a renewal was appropriate based on the AI’s gathered information. In the remaining 9% of cases, the physician wanted additional information, such as confirmatory lab results.

In 69% of the cases where AI escalated to a physician, the physician agreed the escalation was appropriate. For the remaining 31%, the escalation was determined overly cautious by the physician.

"For a new system like this, overcaution is appropriate and welcome," the state's Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy noted in the data sheet. "In the long term, reducing overcaution without compromising safety would improve patient access to care, but we aren't rushing to see that happen."

Editor’s note: To read the full report, click here. To read additional coverage from TechTarget, click here.