The Independent Advantage S02 E02: Should you worry about AI replacing you?

In this segment of The Independent Advantage, the discussion centers on how independent optometrists should understand and practically approach AI in optometry, with a focus on risk, regulation, patient expectations, and workflow efficiency.

The conversation opens with Diana Canto-Sims, OD, acknowledging that for many practice owners, the core challenge is not whether AI matters but what it really means for day‑to‑day practice. Maria Sampalis, OD, highlights her main concerns: potential diagnostic errors, patients misunderstanding AI output as a final clinical decision, and especially HIPAA and privacy risks. She stresses the importance of working only with legitimate companies, having appropriate business associate agreements, and ensuring data protection.

Sampalis then addresses common misconceptions among independent optometrists. Many assume AI is too expensive, too complicated, or destined to replace doctors. Drawing on her own experience using AI to double‑check macular OCT images, she reframes AI as a collaborative tool rather than a threat—useful for reducing administrative burden and supporting clinical decision‑making when a case is uncertain.

When asked directly whether doctors should worry about AI replacing eye care providers, Sampalis firmly says no, comparing current fears to past anxieties about autorefractors and LASIK. Historically, new technologies have expanded optometric practice rather than eliminated it. She also notes that patients still value personal interaction, citing mixed experiences with telemedicine; some patients accept remote care, but many still prefer in‑person relationships.

The conversation moves into patient choice and communication preferences. Sampalis describes how her practice uses software for appointment reminders and online booking—via calls, texts, or emails—emphasizing that preferences vary by individual rather than age. These tools, she notes, help front desk efficiency without “replacing” staff.

Addressing legal and cybersecurity concerns, she validates doctors’ fears and explains her own safeguards: verifying vendor legitimacy, ensuring HIPAA awareness, securing cyber liability insurance, and reducing the amount of sensitive data (eg, moving away from Social Security numbers). She views cyber coverage as analogous to malpractice insurance—low‑likelihood but high‑peace‑of‑mind.

Sampalis recommends incremental implementation of AI: testing tools herself and with staff, starting small, and recognizing that not every solution fits every practice. She notes emerging uses such as billing and prior authorizations, which could significantly ease administrative burden. She also emphasizes vetting vendors with a solid reputation in optometry and staying current through professional resources like the AOA, industry magazines, and consultants.

The segment closes on a more lighthearted note with a fill‑in‑the‑blank prompt. Sampalis summarizes her philosophy succinctly: independent optometrists should stop thinking of AI as a competitor and start thinking of it as a collaborator, particularly in offloading “all this workload, headache, and paperwork” rather than replacing the optometrist’s clinical role.