US dataswitch to UK
Medical and Health Services Managers
directing, supervising and evaluating work activities, establishing work schedules and assignments and directing or conducting recruitment, hiring and training of personnel. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
This job is splitting in two: preparing activity reports to inform management of the status and implementation plans of programs is work AI now does quickly and cheaply, and directing, supervising and evaluating work activities is work it can't touch.
Which half fills your week decides your exposure. The ledger below shows which rows you can move toward.
Your week, as this page understands it
Plan, direct, or coordinate medical and health services in hospitals, clinics, managed care organizations, public health agencies, or similar organizations. The job title says “medical” or “health services managers”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: directing, supervising and evaluating work activities. 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 medical and health services managers is not one task. It is 18 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is directing, supervising and evaluating work activities, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 46%
- changing shape
- 6%
- staying human
- 48%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 46 out of 100 (41–52 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 18 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 medical and health services managers 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.
- 1 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.
Shifting to AI
8 tasksTasks 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.
Establishing work schedules and assignments
This is reading one thing and writing another: work schedules in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Establish work schedules and assignments for staff, according to workload, space, and equipment availability.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 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: Building rotas around workload, space and equipment is a scheduling problem software solves well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing and maintaining computerized record management systems to store and process data
This is reading one thing and writing another: computerized record management systems in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop and maintain computerized record management systems to store and process data, such as personnel activities and information, and to produce reports.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 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: Building and running record systems that turn data into reports is core computer work software does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Establishing objectives and evaluative or operational criteria for units
This is reading one thing and writing another: objectives in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Establish objectives and evaluative or operational criteria for units managed.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high 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: Setting objectives and measures for a unit is written planning work software drafts well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Maintaining awareness of advances in medicine
This is reading one thing and writing another: awareness of advances in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Maintain awareness of advances in medicine, computerized diagnostic and treatment equipment, data processing technology, government regulations, health insurance changes, and financing options.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very high 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: Keeping up with regulations, technology and insurance changes is reading and summarising, which 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 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Preparing activity reports to inform management of the status and implementation plans of programs
This is reading one thing and writing another: activity reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare activity reports to inform management of the status and implementation plans of programs, services, and quality initiatives.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 93 out of 100 (86–100 allowing for uncertainty): very high 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: Turning system data into a status report for management is routine drafting software does to a high standard.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
1 taskTasks 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.
Conducting and administering fiscal operations
The software now makes the first pass at fiscal operations, 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 4 · CoreSource: “Conduct and administer fiscal operations, including accounting, planning budgets, authorizing expenditures, establishing rates for services, and coordinating financial reporting.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 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: Budgets and financial reporting are largely spreadsheet work, though a qualified finance person signs 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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
9 tasksTasks 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.
Directing, supervising and evaluating work activities
The value here is that a specific person handles work activities and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Direct, supervise and evaluate work activities of medical, nursing, technical, clerical, service, maintenance, and other personnel.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 12 out of 100 (8–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Directing and appraising clinical and support staff rests on standing relationships with the people being managed.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Directing or conducting recruitment, hiring and training of personnel
The value here is that a specific person handles recruitment, hiring and training of personnel and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Direct or conduct recruitment, hiring, and training of personnel.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Adverts, screening and training material can be produced by software; interviewing and hiring stay with people.
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 3/4.
Managing change in integrated health care delivery systems
The value here is that a specific person handles change and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Manage change in integrated health care delivery systems, such as work restructuring, technological innovations, and shifts in the focus of care.” (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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Restructuring work only sticks if staff trust the person leading the change.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Planning, implementing
The value here is that a specific person handles programs and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Plan, implement, and administer programs and services in a health care or medical facility, including personnel administration, training, and coordination of medical, nursing and physical plant staff.” (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: Programme plans can be drafted, but putting them into practice depends on persuading clinical teams.
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.
Show the other 8 tasks
Monitoring the use of diagnostic services
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: the use of diagnostic services in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Monitor the use of diagnostic services, inpatient beds, facilities, and staff to ensure effective use of resources and assess the need for additional staff, equipment, and services.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 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: Tracking bed, service and staff usage is analysis of data the organisation already holds.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing and analyzing facility activities and data to aid planning and cash and risk management and to improve service utilization
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: facility activities in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Review and analyze facility activities and data to aid planning and cash and risk management and to improve service utilization.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 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: Reviewing activity data for planning and risk is analysis of information already held digitally.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing and implementing organizational policies and procedures for the facility or medical unit
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: organizational policies in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop and implement organizational policies and procedures for the facility or medical unit.” (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: Policies and procedures are documents, and drafting them from regulations and standards suits software.
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.
Developing instructional materials and conducting in-service and community-based educational programs
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: instructional materials, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Develop instructional materials and conduct in-service and community-based educational programs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low 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 material is quick for software to produce, though the sessions themselves are delivered in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing or expanding and implementing medical programs or health services that promote research
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles medical programs and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop or expand and implement medical programs or health services that promote research, rehabilitation, and community health.” (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: Programme design can be drafted, but getting a new health service running depends on local relationships.
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.
Maintaining communication between governing boards
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles communication and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Maintain communication between governing boards, medical staff, and department heads by attending board meetings and coordinating interdepartmental functioning.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (9–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: The point of this is keeping boards and clinicians talking to each other, which needs a person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Consulting with medical, business and community groups to discuss service problems
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles medical, business and community groups and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Consult with medical, business, and community groups to discuss service problems, respond to community needs, enhance public relations, coordinate activities and plans, and promote health programs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (9–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Community and clinical groups engage with a person they know, not with prepared material.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Inspecting facilities and recommending building or equipment modifications to ensure emergency readiness and compliance
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: facilities, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Inspect facilities and recommend building or equipment modifications to ensure emergency readiness and compliance to access, safety, and sanitation regulations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: The report writes itself once the facts are known, but the walk-round has to be done in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $123,860a 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
- 597,080in 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: activity reports in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: preparing activity reports to inform management of the status and implementation plans of programs and establishing work schedules and assignments. What it cannot do is be trusted in person, which is what work activities run on: someone specific doing it and standing behind it. 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
The exposed part of your job is the biggest part, and I am not going to dress that up: preparing activity reports to inform management of the status and implementation plans of programs is work today's tools do quickly and cheaply, and that is not coming back.
So, given all that: 46% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 6% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 48% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 18 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
What you have that the software does not is directing, supervising and evaluating work activities, plus the years of knowing when something looks wrong before you can say why. That is the raw material for everything below.
This week: one thing
Sit on the machine's side of the desk. Pick one real piece of activity reports you would normally do yourself, let whatever software you already have take the first pass at it, and then go through what it produced and write down every single thing it got wrong. One evening this week. Do not fix anything yet. Just catch it.
- What you end up holding
- a written list of the machine’s mistakes, in your handwriting
- How long it takes
- an evening, or an hour if you pick one job rather than one client
If you can’t run software on your employer’s or your clients’ data: Do the same hunt on paper. Take one printed piece of activity reports, work through it the way you always do, and mark every point where you made a call rather than followed a rule. Same evening, same list, nothing to log into and nobody to ask permission from. That list is the same artifact: it is the judgment written down.
Over the next 90 days
Change one sentence about what you do. Not on a CV. Out loud, to whoever pays you. From “my job is preparing activity reports to inform management of the status and implementation plans of programs” to “I check what the software does and tell you what it means.” Your error list from this week is what makes that sentence true instead of a claim, so use it: show it once, to one person, inside the next ninety days. Same skills, priced as judgment rather than as typing.
Over the next 12 months
Walk toward the end of this job that answers for things, and get it recognised. Pick the one part of directing, supervising and evaluating work activities you are already best at, and spend the year making it formal: a qualification, a named responsibility, a specialism people ask for by name. Price it honestly: that is evenings, it is months rather than weeks, and the seats are competitive because everyone in your position is looking at the same door. 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, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to medical and health services managers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was health information technologists and medical registrars: only about 10% of its durable work is work you already do, it pays 45.1% less and there are far fewer of those jobs than of yours. Your own job splits about 46/54: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “direct, supervise and evaluate work activities of medical, nursing, technical, clerical, service…”, and let the exposed end go.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
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.
Health Information Technologists and Medical Registrars
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already direct, supervise and evaluate work activities of medical, nursing, technical, clerical, service, maintenance…, and their equivalent is to manage the department or supervise clerical workers, directing or controlling activities of personnel…. Across both published task lists that is about 10% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 10% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. It is a pay cut, in those words: $68,020 against your $123,860, 45.1% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice. And it is a narrow door: about 38,100 of those jobs against 597,080 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 6% as many seats.
Epidemiologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already direct, supervise and evaluate work activities of medical, nursing, technical, clerical, service, maintenance…, and their equivalent is to supervise professional, technical, and clerical personnel. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $87,220 against your $123,860, 29.6% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice. And it is a narrow door: about 12,090 of those jobs against 597,080 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 2% as many seats.
Management Analysts
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already develop and implement organizational policies and procedures for the facility or medical unit, and their equivalent is to prepare manuals and train workers in use of new forms, reports, procedures or…. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $101,860 against your $123,860, 17.8% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
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: 46% of its task weight, across 18 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
“It’s too late for me to become something else”
You are not starting from zero, and the page shows why: directing, supervising and evaluating work activities is work the software cannot do and you already do it. The move above is a repricing of what you know, not a new career. Nobody who has just left college has that.
“I should learn to code”
Almost certainly not. The value in your job is moving toward checking, deciding and answering for the output, not toward writing the software. A weekend of Python will not change your position; the error list from this week will.
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.
If you run a team doing this job
If you run a team doing this job, the conversation you owe them is the one on this page, and sooner than feels comfortable. Show them the ledger rather than a reassurance: the rows moving toward the software are preparing activity reports to inform management of the status and implementation plans of programs, and the rows that are not are where you want your people visible. Ask each of them to do the this-week move and bring the list to your next one-to-one. It turns a rumour into a piece of work, and it tells you which parts of your team's week are actually at stake. And say the thing out loud that a team lead usually leaves unsaid: a shrinking team is your exposure too, so do the move yourself as well.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Health services and public health managers and directors 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
The other groups this work is counted across:
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Health services and public health managers and directors and Residential, day and domiciliary care managers and proprietors. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.
Your route through this
Two honest options, and no deadline on either
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.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
A nearby route
There's no Space built for medical and health services managers yet.
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.
The closest match is The AI Authority, a community for non-technical managers and domain experts turning one-off AI prompts into workflows a team can trust. It overlaps with the part of your job that is growing: briefing, checking and delegating AI-assisted work so it is repeatable rather than one person’s trick, and setting the rules that keep a team’s AI output consistent. It covers nothing clinical and nothing about healthcare regulation, licensing or patient records: only the desk half of the job. If that overlap isn't you, the free route below covers the same ground.
- Problem: “I can use AI, but I can’t turn it into a workflow my team can trust”
- Problem: “I can’t hand off AI work without it falling apart”
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
After the trial it is a paid community, and you get identical data either way. If the overlap above is not your job, the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for medical and health services managers 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 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 Medical and Health Services Managers?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 18 official task statements scored for Medical and Health Services Managers (United States, SOC 11-9111), 46% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 46 out of 100 (range 41–52, band: partial). 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 “Medical and Health Services Managers” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Prepare activity reports to inform management of the status and implementation plans of programs, services, and quality initiatives” (93/100, very high); “Maintain awareness of advances in medicine, computerized diagnostic and treatment equipment, data processing technology, government regulations, health insur…” (83/100, very high); “Develop and maintain computerized record management systems to store and process data, such as personnel activities and information, and to produce reports” (75/100, high). 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 “Medical and Health Services Managers” stay human?
- About 48% 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: “Direct, supervise and evaluate work activities of medical, nursing, technical, clerical, service, maintenance, and other personnel” (12/100, minimal); “Inspect facilities and recommend building or equipment modifications to ensure emergency readiness and compliance to access, safety, and sanitation regulations” (13/100, minimal); “Consult with medical, business, and community groups to discuss service problems, respond to community needs, enhance public relations, coordinate activities…” (13/100, 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 “Medical and Health Services Managers” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 46% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 48% 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 Medical and Health Services Managers 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 18 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
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 1 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 2026-08-04.
- 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.
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}
}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.