2026 Patient Access Survey: Better Access Starts with Coordination
A survey with the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) on turning access tools into stable, complete patient access.
Building Intelligent Patient Access
More tools in the technology stack do not automatically produce better access. Among medical groups with the broadest toolsets, just 8% of the least-coordinated saw access improve, compared with 59% of the most-coordinated. The same channels, very different results, as coordination is emerging as the real driver of stable, complete patient access.
To capture how healthcare leaders are closing that gap, Relatient partnered with MGMA to survey 416 medical practice leaders on the state of patient access. The findings highlight where they’re investing and how intelligent systems, from digital scheduling to AI voice and AI-assisted routing, are redefining patient access as an operating model advantage.
Survey Highlights
65%
of well-coordinated groups saw patient access improve
34%
practice leaders say timely access got easier over the past year
79%
name new appointment scheduling their most burdensome inbound request
52%
cite too few appointment slots as their top barrier
“
Access has never been about any single tool. It is about the model underneath it. When your workflows, modalities and team all operate from the same foundation, you stop managing disconnected point solutions and start delivering access as one experience. That shift is what separates intelligent patient access from simply having more technology.
– Jeff Gartland, Chief Executive Officer
The Priorities That Move Patient Access
A few priorities separate the leaders, beginning with a unified scheduling model, extending to digital channels that complete the task, and adding AI on top of coordination rather than ahead of it.
A Bigger Tech Stack Isn't the Answer
Organizations have never had more ways to reach patients, yet a bigger tech stack did not produce better access. Among groups with the broadest toolsets, just 8% of those running disconnected systems saw access improve, compared with 59% of those whose tools worked in sync. Practices using seven or more tools were no more likely to improve access than those using the fewest.
The Difference Is How the Pieces Fit Together
When provider rules and preferences, modalities, and staff handoffs all draw from one source of truth, requests move forward instead of stalling between queues. Improved access climbs from 7% of the least-aligned groups to 65% of the most, and every 10-point gain on the Access Coordination Index brings roughly 1.6 times the odds of improvement. Mid-size groups feel the gap most: only 6% of practices with 21–75 physicians and APPs reported improved access.
A Connected Model Pays Off Everywhere, Including AI
Respondents whose systems work as one do not just improve access, they see gains across the board with fewer no-shows, lower call burden, better accuracy, and more after-hours reach. On average they reported 5.1 measurable benefits versus 1.6 for disconnected groups. It’s also what makes AI deliver. Among AI adopters, 59% of well-aligned groups improved access, compared with just 9% of the rest.
