Not all patient calls are created equal. Some can be fully automated without any loss in care quality. Others require clinical judgment that no algorithm should replace. The difference between a well-run medical practice and one drowning in phone chaos often comes down to one thing: knowing which calls fall into which category — and having the infrastructure to handle each appropriately.
At CallMyDoc, we have processed over 26 million patient calls across 38 states, categorized into 12 distinct clinical request types. That dataset — spanning single-provider family practices to 1,354-location enterprise health systems — gives us an unusually clear picture of what patients actually call about, how long each call type takes to resolve, and which ones can be safely automated without clinical risk.
This article breaks it all down: the real percentages, the operational cost of each call type, and the staffing math that should drive your automation decisions.
When practices think about phone automation, they tend to lump all calls into a single bucket. That is a mistake. The call types that consume 60–70% of your phone volume are fundamentally different from the remaining 30–40% — in complexity, liability profile, and automation potential.
Here is what 26 million calls reveal about the actual distribution of patient call types in medical practices:
These call categories follow predictable workflows, require no clinical interpretation, and can be resolved with structured routing, AI transcription, and patient self-service tools.
| Call Type | % of Volume | Avg. Manual Handle Time | Automated Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appointment scheduling/rescheduling | 25–30% | 5–10 minutes | Self-scheduling in 40 seconds |
| Prescription refill requests | 15–20% | 15–30 minutes (across staff) | Provider approves in 30 seconds from mobile |
| Appointment confirmations/reminders | 5–6% | 3–5 minutes per outbound call | Dual automated reminders (7-day + 1-day) |
| General practice information | 2–3% | 2–4 minutes | AI provides hours, location, insurance info |
| Medical records requests | 3–4% | 5–8 minutes | Auto-routed to records department |
| Billing and insurance inquiries | 4–5% | 5–10 minutes | Routed to billing with structured request |
| Appointment follow-up/post-visit | 2–3% | 3–5 minutes | Automated callbacks and check-ins |
Combined: These seven categories account for roughly 60–70% of all inbound calls at a typical medical practice. Every one of them follows a repeatable workflow that clinical communication infrastructure can handle without human intervention — or with minimal human touchpoints.
These call types involve clinical interpretation, patient-specific decision-making, or negotiation that AI should support but never replace.
| Call Type | % of Volume | Why Human Judgment Is Required |
|---|---|---|
| Symptom reporting / clinical questions | 7–9% | Clinical triage requires medical training; liability risk |
| Test results / lab inquiries | 10–12% | Provider must interpret results in clinical context |
| Referral requests | 5–7% | Clinical appropriateness must be determined |
| Prior authorization | 2–3% | Requires staff negotiation with insurance payers |
| Urgent / emergent calls | 3–5% | Immediate provider escalation; time-critical |
Here is the critical distinction: even for this 30–40%, AI still plays a vital role. CallMyDoc’s infrastructure handles the capture, transcription, categorization, and routing for every single call — including these complex ones. The AI does everything except the clinical decision itself. That is the human-in-the-loop model that separates clinical communication infrastructure from generic AI answering services.
If you could only automate one call type, prescription refill requests should be your first target. Here is why the data is so compelling.
In most practices, a single refill request touches three to four staff members and takes 15 to 30 minutes of aggregate labor:
Multiply that by 30 to 50 refill requests per day — which is typical for a multi-provider primary care practice — and you are looking at 7 to 25 hours of aggregate staff time consumed daily by refills alone.
With CallMyDoc’s e-prescription and refill infrastructure, the workflow compresses dramatically:
Total staff involvement: near zero. Total provider time: 30 seconds. Total patient wait: minutes instead of hours or days.
Hudson Headwaters — a community health network spanning 89 offices across rural New York — deployed CallMyDoc across their system and saw 68.1% of business-hour calls handled automatically. Refill requests were among the highest-impact categories. Nursing staff who had been spending significant portions of their shifts on the phone were freed to return to bedside care — the work they were trained and hired to do.
With 7,532 monthly calls flowing through CallMyDoc, after-hours calls were handled 3× faster, and 41.6% of routine requests — heavily weighted toward refills and scheduling — were resolved entirely within the platform without any staff involvement.
While refills deliver the highest per-call ROI, appointment scheduling is the highest-volume call type at 25–30% of all inbound calls. Automating scheduling produces the single largest reduction in total phone workload.
A traditional scheduling call averages 5 to 10 minutes because of the back-and-forth required:
At 200 calls per day — a moderate volume for a multi-provider practice — scheduling alone generates 50 to 60 calls requiring 4 to 10 hours of staff time daily.
CallMyDoc’s Schedule My Patient feature lets patients book appointments in under 40 seconds — no patient portal login required, no staff involvement needed. The system identifies the patient, presents available slots based on provider, visit type, and location, and confirms the booking. The appointment appears directly in the practice’s scheduling system.
The downstream impact extends beyond the initial call:
Castle Hills Family Practice in San Antonio — a two-location practice handling 5,222 monthly calls — achieved a 50% reduction in phone workload after deploying CallMyDoc. Scheduling and refill automation accounted for the bulk of that reduction. In just 90 days, the practice served 1,938 unique patients through the platform, and 51.9% of their calls came after hours — all of which were documented and routed without any staff overtime.
When patients call with symptoms — “I have had chest pain since this morning,” “My child has a 104-degree fever” — the stakes change fundamentally. These calls represent 7–9% of volume, but they carry disproportionate clinical and legal risk.
Some AI platforms advertise the ability to “triage” patient symptoms autonomously. This creates three problems:
CallMyDoc’s approach to symptom calls is deliberately designed as human-in-the-loop AI — the system maximizes what AI does well while preserving human clinical judgment where it matters:
This model is why CallMyDoc has maintained zero malpractice incidents across 26 million calls. The AI accelerates every step around the clinical decision without replacing the decision itself.
Understanding the automatable-vs-clinical split transforms how practices should think about staffing. The math is straightforward and significant.
Consider a practice handling 200 inbound calls per day (moderate for a multi-provider clinic):
Automating the 60% means recovering 14 hours of staff labor every single day. Over a year, that is approximately 3,640 hours — equivalent to nearly two full-time employees dedicated exclusively to answering phones.
The real staffing impact is qualitative, not just quantitative:
At enterprise scale, the staffing impact compounds dramatically. Millennium Physician Group — with 200+ locations, 900+ providers, and 34,492 monthly calls flowing through CallMyDoc — achieved 52.1% business-hours resolution within 1.8 hours across their 1,354 dashboards. At that volume, even a 5% improvement in automation rates translates to thousands of recovered staff hours per month.
One of the most overlooked factors in medical call automation is IVR design — the menu structure patients navigate when they call your practice. A poorly designed IVR wastes patient time, routes calls inefficiently, and drives up abandonment rates. But here is what most practice administrators do not realize: the optimal IVR design varies dramatically by specialty, and it should be driven by your actual call mix data.
CallMyDoc configures IVR routing differently depending on whether a practice is refill-heavy or appointment-heavy — and the difference in outcomes is substantial.
Specialties where medication management dominates the clinical workflow require an IVR architecture that front-loads refill capture. These practices configure sub_type_routing to enable options H (Medication), I (New Prescriptions), J (Prescription Refill), C (Scheduling), and D (Non-Urgent Other). This routing structure gives medication-related calls their own dedicated pathways rather than funneling them through a generic “leave a message” option.
These practices use phrase group 62-J with a targeted refill capture prompt that identifies the specific medication, dosage, pharmacy, and last fill date upfront — before the call reaches any staff member. This structured capture eliminates the back-and-forth that typically adds 5–10 minutes to each refill call.
The IVR design front-loads refill capture because 35–45% of call volume in these specialties is medication-related — combining refills, medication questions, and new prescription requests. For psychiatry, pain management, and endocrinology practices, a single well-designed refill menu option can eliminate 20–30% of total front-desk call handling. That is not a marginal improvement; it is the difference between needing three front-desk staff and needing two.
Specialties where scheduling dominates call volume need a fundamentally different IVR approach. These practices use a streamlined configuration with override_call_type: Patient and sub_type_routing: 0 (disabled). Fewer menu layers are needed because the majority of calls are scheduling-related.
The IVR bypasses the call-type selection menu entirely and routes directly to scheduling or message-taking. This means the patient hears fewer prompts, makes fewer button presses, and reaches the right destination faster. For appointment-heavy specialties, self-scheduling (under 40 seconds) produces the highest ROI because appointment calls represent 40–50% of their volume.
Why this matters: One-size-fits-all IVR designs waste patient time and route calls inefficiently. A psychiatry practice that uses the same IVR as a dermatology clinic is forcing 35–45% of its callers through a menu structure optimized for a call type that represents only 15–20% of its volume. Practices should configure their phone infrastructure based on their actual call mix — and that mix varies dramatically by specialty. The data should drive the design, not the other way around.
Understanding the theoretical automation potential is one thing. Seeing the actual dollar savings by call type makes the business case concrete. The following table breaks down current automation rates, achievable targets, and the annual cost recovery for a typical five-provider practice:
| Call Type | Current Automation Rate | Achievable Rate | Annual Savings (5-Provider Practice) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appointment confirmations/reminders | 60% | 90% | $8,000 – $12,000 |
| Appointment cancellations | 30% | 80% | $5,000 – $8,000 |
| New appointment booking | 15% | 50% | $15,000 – $25,000 |
| Routine refill requests | 20% | 60% | $18,000 – $30,000 |
| Refill status checks | 10% | 70% | $6,000 – $10,000 |
| Total recoverable | $52,000 – $85,000/year |
Several insights emerge from this data that challenge conventional assumptions about medical call automation:
The largest single savings category is routine refill requests — not appointment booking. This surprises most practice administrators, who assume scheduling automation delivers the biggest financial impact because it has the highest call volume. But the math tells a different story.
Refill automation delivers more savings per call because the current automation rate is so low (20%) and the manual workflow is so labor-intensive. Each manually processed refill touches 3–4 staff members and consumes 15–30 minutes of aggregate labor. Closing the gap from 20% to 60% automation on a high-cost-per-call category produces outsized savings.
Appointment confirmations, by contrast, already have higher automation rates (60%) — many practices already use some form of automated reminders. So the marginal improvement from 60% to 90% is smaller in both percentage terms and absolute dollar impact.
The $52,000 to $85,000 annual range represents staff time freed for patient-facing activities, not headcount reduction. Practices that automate these call types typically redeploy staff to revenue-generating work — insurance verification, care coordination, patient outreach — rather than eliminating positions. The recovered hours become an investment in practice growth rather than a cost-cutting measure.
After analyzing the full spectrum of refill and appointment call data, seven conclusions stand out — several of which run counter to what most practice administrators assume:
The 60/40 split is not just an interesting statistic — it is an operational blueprint. Here is how to apply it:
Before investing in any automation, understand your practice’s specific call distribution. Track call types for two weeks. Most practices discover their numbers closely match the 26-million-call averages, but specialty practices may skew — dermatology tends to have higher scheduling volume; cardiology tends to have more symptom calls and test result inquiries.
Refills deliver the highest ROI per call because the manual workflow is so labor-intensive. If your providers are still being interrupted to approve routine refills, that is your first and most impactful automation target.
Scheduling automation produces the largest absolute reduction in call volume. Combined with automated appointment reminders, this eliminates both inbound scheduling calls and outbound confirmation calls.
The calls that require human judgment still benefit enormously from proper infrastructure — AI transcription, intelligent routing, chart context, and complete documentation. The goal is not to automate clinical decisions but to ensure every piece of information reaches the right person as fast as possible.
CallMyDoc’s KPI dashboard tracks call volume, resolution time, and staff efficiency in real time. After deployment, monitor your automation rates and identify remaining bottlenecks. Hudson Headwaters reached 68.1% automatic handling; your practice may reach higher or lower depending on your call mix and specialty.
The practices that thrive operationally are not the ones that automate everything indiscriminately or the ones that refuse to automate at all. They are the ones that have clinical communication infrastructure intelligent enough to know the difference — that routes a refill request to a 30-second mobile approval while ensuring a symptom call reaches the right provider with full chart context in minutes.
That distinction — built on 26 million calls, zero breaches, zero lost calls, and a track record spanning 38 states — is what separates a communication platform designed for healthcare from a generic AI answering service.
Based on analysis of over 26 million patient calls across 38 states, prescription refill requests account for 15–20% of all inbound calls to medical practices. This makes refills the second-highest call category after appointment scheduling. For multi-provider primary care practices, this typically translates to 30–50 refill calls per day, each consuming 15–30 minutes of aggregate staff time through the traditional manual workflow.
Yes — appointment scheduling is the most automatable call type in medical practices, accounting for 25–30% of all inbound calls. AI-powered self-scheduling systems allow patients to book appointments in under 40 seconds without staff involvement. The key requirements are EHR integration (so the AI can access real-time provider availability), patient identification (matching the caller to their chart), and automated confirmation with dual reminders to reduce no-shows by up to 40%.
Approximately 30–40% of patient calls require human clinical judgment. These include symptom reporting and clinical questions (7–9% of volume), test results and lab inquiries (10–12%), referral requests (5–7%), prior authorization negotiations (2–3%), and urgent or emergent calls (3–5%). For these call types, the optimal approach is human-in-the-loop AI: the technology handles transcription, categorization, and routing while humans make the clinical decisions.
For a practice handling 200 calls per day, automating the 60% of calls that follow predictable workflows recovers approximately 14 hours of staff time daily — equivalent to nearly two full-time employees annually. Real-world results confirm this: Castle Hills Family Practice achieved a 50% phone workload reduction, and Hudson Headwaters saw 68.1% of business-hour calls handled automatically, freeing nursing staff to return to bedside patient care.
Every missed appointment scheduling call represents a potential empty slot worth $150–$350 in lost revenue. For a practice experiencing just 10 missed scheduling opportunities per week, the annual revenue impact ranges from $78,000 to $182,000. Beyond direct revenue loss, delayed refill processing leads to patient dissatisfaction and potential churn, while unanswered symptom calls create malpractice liability. Clinical communication infrastructure that ensures zero lost calls eliminates these compounding losses entirely.
Schedule a live demo and we will walk through your call volume, identify your highest-ROI automation targets, and show you exactly how CallMyDoc handles each of the 12 clinical call categories — from refill requests to urgent escalations.
Book a Live DemoNo setup fees • No long-term contracts • 30-day trial