Futureproof
Menu

US dataswitch to UK

Family Medicine Physicians

prescribing or administering treatment, therapy, medication, explaining procedures and discussing test results or prescribed treatments with patients and advising patients and community members concerning diet. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: prescribing or administering treatment, therapy, medication, vaccination and other specialized medical care to treat or prevent illness, disease or injury is work software can't reach.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

What shifts is preparing government or organizational reports which include birth: the paper around the work, not the work.

Your week, as this page understands it

Diagnose, treat, and provide preventive care to individuals and families across the lifespan. May refer patients to specialists when needed for further diagnosis or treatment. The job title says “family medicine physicians”. The real job is the part underneath: prescribing or administering treatment, therapy, medication, vaccination and other specialized medical care to treat or prevent illness, disease or injury. That is the thing someone has to be right about.

The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But family medicine physicians is not one task. It is 12 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is prescribing or administering treatment, therapy, medication, vaccination and other specialized medical care to treat or prevent illness, disease or injury, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI
4%
changing shape
20%
staying human
76%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 28 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 12 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.

How we know this

What is measured: Every published task statement for family medicine physicians is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.

Shifting to AI

1 task

Tasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.

  • Preparing government or organizational reports which include birth

    This is reading one thing and writing another: government in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.

    importance 4 · Supplemental
    Source: “Prepare government or organizational reports which include birth, death, and disease statistics, workforce evaluations, or medical status of individuals.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.

    The rating behind it: Pulling statistics into a required report is straightforward document work software does quickly.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Changing shape

2 tasks

Tasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.

  • Collecting, recording and maintaining patient information, such as medical history, reports or examination results

    The software now makes the first pass at patient information, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Collect, record, and maintain patient information, such as medical history, reports, or examination results.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 52 out of 100 (45–59 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.

    The rating behind it: Note-taking software already drafts medical records from the consultation, with the doctor checking and signing.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Referring patients to medical specialists or other practitioners

    The software now makes the first pass at patients, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Refer patients to medical specialists or other practitioners when necessary.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.

    The rating behind it: Deciding and writing a referral is largely rule-following on records, though a clinician signs it off.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

9 tasks

Tasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.

  • Prescribing or administering treatment, therapy, medication, vaccination and other specialized medical care to treat or prevent illness, disease or injury

    This work happens in the physical world: treatment, therapy, medication, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Prescribe or administer treatment, therapy, medication, vaccination, and other specialized medical care to treat or prevent illness, disease, or injury.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.

    Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Prescribing and giving treatment is restricted to licensed clinicians, and administering it means hands on the patient.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Ordering, performing and interpreting tests and analyzing records, reports and examination information to diagnose patients' condition

    The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for tests, and that person cannot be a piece of software.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Order, perform, and interpret tests and analyze records, reports, and examination information to diagnose patients' condition.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.

    The rating behind it: Software reads test results well, but reaching a diagnosis is legally the physician’s job.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Monitoring patients' conditions and progress and reevaluate treatments

    The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients' conditions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Monitor patients' conditions and progress and reevaluate treatments as necessary.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 19 out of 100 (12–26 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Tracking progress can be automated in part, but changing treatment is a licensed clinical decision.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Explaining procedures and discussing test results or prescribed treatments with patients

    The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for procedures, and that person cannot be a piece of software.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Explain procedures and discuss test results or prescribed treatments with patients.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Results and treatment plans can be written up clearly, but hearing them from your own doctor is much of the point.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Advising patients and community members concerning diet

    The value here is that a specific person handles patients and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Advise patients and community members concerning diet, activity, hygiene, and disease prevention.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: General advice on diet, exercise and prevention is abundantly documented and easy for software to tailor.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 4/4.

  • Coordinating work with nurses, social workers, rehabilitation therapists, pharmacists, psychologists and other health care providers

    The value here is that a specific person handles work and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Coordinate work with nurses, social workers, rehabilitation therapists, pharmacists, psychologists, and other health care providers.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Software can draft the care summaries, but joint decisions happen in conversation between the professionals involved.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Directing and coordinating activities of nurses

    The value here is that a specific person handles activities of nurses and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Direct and coordinate activities of nurses, students, assistants, specialists, therapists, and other medical staff.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (8–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Running a clinical team day to day depends on being present with the people doing the work.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

Show the other 2 tasks

  • Planning, implementing or administering health programs or standards in hospitals, businesses or communities for prevention or treatment of injury or illness

    staying human

    The ratings behind this row put health programs well outside what today's tools can do on their own.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Plan, implement, or administer health programs or standards in hospitals, businesses, or communities for prevention or treatment of injury or illness.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.

    The rating behind it: Program design draws on published guidance, but running it locally needs a person on the ground.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Training residents, medical students and other health care professionals

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: residents, medical students and other health care professionals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 3 · Core
    Source: “Train residents, medical students, and other health care professionals.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Teaching materials are easy to produce; bedside teaching depends on a senior doctor being there.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay
$244,180a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this

Source: bls-oews

Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)

Rounding: Shown as published.

People doing this job
107,510in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)

What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.

Why this is shifting

The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: patient information in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: preparing government or organizational reports which include birth and collecting, recording and maintaining patient information. What it cannot do is be answerable: treatment, therapy, medication need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend

Start with what does not change: prescribing or administering treatment, therapy, medication, vaccination and other specialized medical care to treat or prevent illness, disease or injury is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.

So, given all that: 4% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 20% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 76% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 12 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Preparing government or organizational reports which include birth is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.

This week: one thing

Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to patient information, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.

What you end up holding
a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
How long it takes
ten minutes

If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether treatment, therapy, medication are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.

Over the next 90 days

Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near collecting, recording and maintaining patient information, such as medical history, reports or examination results. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.

Over the next 12 months

On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

The roads out of here

You did not come here for a career change and I am not selling you one. But two roads out of here are worth knowing about, so here they are with the bill attached.

  • Family Medicine PhysiciansObstetricians and Gynecologists

    a year or morematched on shared tasks

    You already prescribe or administer treatment, therapy, medication, vaccination, and other specialized medical care to treat…. In that job the same thing shows up as prescribe or administer therapy, medication, and other specialized medical care to treat or prevent…. Take both published task lists together and about 59% of the work in that job that the software is not taking is work you are doing today.

    Half of what they do, you do already. The argument is about the other half, not about starting again.

    The work the two jobs share

    • You already do

      “Prescribe or administer treatment, therapy, medication, vaccination, and other specialized medical care to treat or prevent illness, disease, or injury.”

      They do

      “Prescribe or administer therapy, medication, and other specialized medical care to treat or prevent illness, disease, or injury.”

    • You already do

      “Explain procedures and discuss test results or prescribed treatments with patients.”

      They do

      “Explain procedures and discuss test results or prescribed treatments with patients.”

    • You already do

      “Monitor patients' conditions and progress and reevaluate treatments as necessary.”

      They do

      “Monitor patients' conditions and progress and reevaluate treatments as necessary.”

    What you would not already have: Nothing in your task list touches “treat diseases of female organs”, “consult with or provide consulting services to other physicians” or “care for and treat women during prenatal, natal, and postnatal periods”. That is the part you would be learning from scratch, and it is roughly the 41% of their durable work you do not already hold.

    The honest bill

    Pay: $292,910 against your $244,180 (OEWS May 2025 (both)).

    • The licence gate: Default-closed. This release carries no licence-register snapshot, so I could not check whether that job is regulated, which means I have to assume it might be. Before you spend a penny, look it up on the US Labor Department’s licensed-occupations finder; the free routes below link straight to it. The route is banded a year or more because of that unknown, not in spite of it.
    • The entry ticket: Typical entry-level education is published for only ten occupations in this release, and neither this job nor that one is among them. So I cannot tell you whether a qualification stands in the way. Treat that as an open question to settle before you commit, not as a green light.
    • What the pay gap is telling you: $292,910 against your $244,180, 20.0% more (OEWS May 2025 (both)). A real difference, not a life-changing one. Take the move for the work, not the raise.
    • What you live on meanwhile: Nobody is going to pay you to retrain. This is evenings and weekends alongside the job you already have, for a year or more, and if that is not possible right now then this route is not open right now, which is worth knowing before you start. The free American Job Center service listed below will talk training funding through with you before you pay anyone.
    • How many seats there are: About 21,260 of those jobs against 107,510 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 20% as many seats. A real door, not a wide one.
    • Is the target job itself holding up: Obstetricians and Gynecologists scores 22/100 on this site’s own exposure measure (low), with 4% of its tasks in the top band. Employment projections are not published for this occupation in this release, so this is the exposure leg of the check only. It passed, which is the only reason it is here.

    How long: A year or more, part-time, alongside the job you have. That band is set by the unchecked licence question and by the 41% of their work you would be learning, not by any one course.

    See what AI is doing to obstetricians and gynecologists

  • Family Medicine PhysiciansGeneral Internal Medicine Physicians

    a year or morematched on shared tasks

    You already prescribe or administer treatment, therapy, medication, vaccination, and other specialized medical care to treat…. In that job the same thing shows up as prescribe or administer medication, therapy, and other specialized medical care to treat or prevent…. Take both published task lists together and about 47% of the work in that job that the software is not taking is work you are doing today.

    About 47% of it you could do on Monday. The rest is the price of the ticket.

    The work the two jobs share

    • You already do

      “Prescribe or administer treatment, therapy, medication, vaccination, and other specialized medical care to treat or prevent illness, disease, or injury.”

      They do

      “Prescribe or administer medication, therapy, and other specialized medical care to treat or prevent illness, disease, or injury.”

    • You already do

      “Explain procedures and discuss test results or prescribed treatments with patients.”

      They do

      “Explain procedures and discuss test results or prescribed treatments with patients.”

    • You already do

      “Monitor patients' conditions and progress and reevaluate treatments as necessary.”

      They do

      “Monitor patients' conditions and progress and reevaluate treatments as necessary.”

    What you would not already have: Nothing in your task list touches “treat internal disorders, such as hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, or problems of…”, “manage and treat common health problems” or “make diagnoses when different illnesses occur together or in situations where the…”. That is the part you would be learning from scratch, and it is roughly the 53% of their durable work you do not already hold.

    The honest bill

    Pay: $256,560 against your $244,180 (OEWS May 2025 (both)).

    • The licence gate: Default-closed. This release carries no licence-register snapshot, so I could not check whether that job is regulated, which means I have to assume it might be. Before you spend a penny, look it up on the US Labor Department’s licensed-occupations finder; the free routes below link straight to it. The route is banded a year or more because of that unknown, not in spite of it.
    • The entry ticket: Typical entry-level education is published for only ten occupations in this release, and neither this job nor that one is among them. So I cannot tell you whether a qualification stands in the way. Treat that as an open question to settle before you commit, not as a green light.
    • What the pay gap is telling you: $256,560 against your $244,180, 5.1% more (OEWS May 2025 (both)). A real difference, not a life-changing one. Take the move for the work, not the raise.
    • What you live on meanwhile: Nobody is going to pay you to retrain. This is evenings and weekends alongside the job you already have, for a year or more, and if that is not possible right now then this route is not open right now, which is worth knowing before you start. The free American Job Center service listed below will talk training funding through with you before you pay anyone.
    • Is the target job itself holding up: General Internal Medicine Physicians scores 23/100 on this site’s own exposure measure (low), with 3% of its tasks in the top band. Employment projections are not published for this occupation in this release, so this is the exposure leg of the check only. It passed, which is the only reason it is here.

    How long: A year or more, part-time, alongside the job you have. That band is set by the unchecked licence question and by the 53% of their work you would be learning, not by any one course.

    See what AI is doing to general internal medicine physicians

3 moves I checked and rejected

These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.

  • Pediatricians, General

    Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “prescribe or administer treatment, therapy, medication, vaccination, and other specialized medical care to treat or prevent…”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 55% of the work in that job the software is not taking.

    Why I am not recommending it: It is a pay cut, in those words: $210,040 against your $244,180, 14.0% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.

    Look at that job’s page anyway →

  • Emergency Medicine Physicians

    Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already monitor patients' conditions and progress and reevaluate treatments as necessary, and their equivalent is to monitor patients' conditions, and reevaluate treatments, as necessary. Across both published task lists that is about 23% of the durable work in that job.

    Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 23% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on.

    Look at that job’s page anyway →

  • Cardiologists

    Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “explain procedures and discuss test results or prescribed treatments with patients”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 20% of the work in that job the software is not taking.

    Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 20% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $496,010 against your $244,180 is 2.03× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 20% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route. And it is a narrow door: about 17,290 of those jobs against 107,510 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 16% as many seats.

    Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.

  • The headline number you read somewhere

    The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 4% of its task weight, across 12 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.

  • The headlines about your trade disappearing

    They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like prescribing or administering treatment, therapy, medication, vaccination and other specialized medical care to treat or prevent illness, disease or injury arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.

  • Retraining out of a job that is holding up

    On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.

  • The “obvious” next job everyone suggests

    I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

You are reading the United States figures

The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Generalist medical practitioners is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.

Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match

In UK official statistics this job is counted as Generalist medical practitioners. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

Free, and complete

The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.

Why there is no community here

Collab365, who build this site, run paid Spaces for a small number of subjects, and none of them is built for this job. We are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.

So the free services listed on this page are the whole answer, and it is the same answer we would give a friend.

Nearby moves

The jobs above, as pages you can read the same way as this one. Your job shares its core work with these. That is what the match is, and it is all it is.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for family medicine physicians launches. Nothing else.

That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.

We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.

No Space for family medicine physicians yet. Should there be one?

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for family medicine physicians existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for family medicine physicians launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Family Medicine Physicians?
Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 12 official task statements scored for Family Medicine Physicians (United States, SOC 29-1215), 4% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 28 out of 100 (range 22–36, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Family Medicine Physicians” can AI already do?
The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Prepare government or organizational reports which include birth, death, and disease statistics, workforce evaluations, or medical status of individuals” (66/100, high); “Collect, record, and maintain patient information, such as medical history, reports, or examination results” (52/100, partial); “Refer patients to medical specialists or other practitioners when necessary” (48/100, partial). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Family Medicine Physicians” stay human?
About 76% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Prescribe or administer treatment, therapy, medication, vaccination, and other specialized medical care to treat or prevent illness, disease, or injury” (4/100, minimal); “Direct and coordinate activities of nurses, students, assistants, specialists, therapists, and other medical staff” (15/100, minimal); “Train residents, medical students, and other health care professionals” (18/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
What should someone working in “Family Medicine Physicians” do about AI?
Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 4% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 76% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
How is the AI exposure score for Family Medicine Physicians calculated?
Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 12 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

About the data on this page

  • One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
  • The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
  • 6 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
  • Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Task statements
onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights
onet-db (im-rt)
Scores
Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
Pay and employment
bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))

Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.

The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.

The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.

How we score a jobDownload this releaseLook up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.

Plain text

Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).

BibTeX

@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
  title        = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
  author       = {{Collab365}},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
  note         = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.