← Risk register SOC 29-2099 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Health Technologists and Technicians, All Other

182,610 US workers · median $50,290/yr · Healthcare

EXPOSED

This is a catch-all bucket — ophthalmic techs, EEG and neurodiagnostic techs, hearing aid specialists, orthopedic and dialysis-adjacent techs, sleep and perfusion assistants — and the modal worker spends most of the shift physically positioning patients, attaching electrodes or probes, calibrating equipment, and running protocol-driven tests. That hands-on layer is safe from software and from today's robotics; what is exposed is the interpretation, documentation, and reporting layer, where AI already reads waveforms, flags abnormalities, and drafts the tech note. Most of these roles carry certification or state registration rather than an independent license with personal liability, so the regulatory shield is thin and varies by state and specialty.

10-year outlook: Headcount holds or grows on demographics because someone must touch the patient, but the documentation and preliminary-read portion of the shift shrinks, pushing techs toward higher-acuity procedural settings and more patients per shift.

US employment, 2021–2025+29.7%
140,770182,610 workers

Headcount grew steadily across the period.

The job count is not the verdict

This line is counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the one figure on this page that isn't a judgement of ours. Headcount moves on demand, offshoring, demographics and the business cycle, and automation is one term among several, often not the loudest.

So a falling line is not evidence that AI did it, and a rising one is not evidence that it won't. Both happen in this register: some occupations resist automation and shrink anyway, others are highly automatable and keep growing.

BLS projection, 2024–2034

+5.2% 178,800 → 188,100 on the projections basis

Growing, and only partly exposed

The BLS expects +5.2% more of these jobs by 2034, and at 54/100 the work is only partly exposed — some tasks are automatable, the core of the job is not. Nothing here is in tension.

Different clocks. The score is what current AI could do to this work today. The projection is how many of these jobs will exist in 2034. Everything between the two — how fast employers actually adopt, whether demand grows in the meantime — is why they can point opposite ways without either being wrong.

~13,600 openings a year on average, including replacing people who leave.

One email if this score changes. Watch as many occupations as you like from the same address — no account, and nothing is sent on a schedule, only when a verdict actually moves.

Also known as — 24 job titles this covers

Titles reported by people doing this work, from the US Department of Labor's O*NET survey. If your job title is here, this page is about your work even though the name doesn't match.

RegistrarAngiographerAudiometristCase ManagerPerfusionistCare NavigatorAdmitting ClerkPatient PartnerClinical LiaisonDrug CoordinatorEncephalographerPatient AdvocatePolysomnographerSleep TechnicianIntake SpecialistPatient NavigatorPatient RegistrarMedical ConsultantMedical TechnicianSleep TechnologistDialysis TechnicianFirst-Aid AttendantHospital TechnicianPatient Coordinator

This is a catch-all code, not a single job

The BLS uses Health Technologists and Technicians, All Other for work that doesn't fit any named occupation, so it covers roles that have little in common with each other. Two consequences worth knowing before you read anything below:

If a more specific occupation on the register describes what you actually do, that page is the one to trust.

Score — 54/100 resistance

Holding it up: embodiment (16/20). Weakest point: judgment & accountability (8/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 12 + 16 + 8 + 10 + 8 = 54. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 12/20

Mixed — a routine tier and a judgment tier A 12 reflects the split inside the shift: applying a 21-lead EEG montage to a squirming pediatric patient, seating a patient at a slit lamp, or troubleshooting a dialysis machine alarm is not going anywhere, but the parts that fill your charting hours — waveform pre-reads, abnormality flagging, tonometry and visual field capture, sleep-study epoch scoring, hearing-threshold plotting — are already largely machine-generated, which is why this sits mid-band rather than at 16.

Embodiment 16/20

Hands-on in uncontrolled environments 16 is earned by the fact that essentially nothing you do happens without the patient in front of you: measuring head circumference and marking scalp with collodion, holding a probe steady during an unpredictable movement, physically taking hearing-aid ear impressions, repositioning limbs for orthopedic casting — all in exam rooms, bedsides and ICUs where lighting, patient cooperation and anatomy vary every time, which no current robot handles.

Liability shield 8/20

Certification preferred, not legally required 8 rather than 14 because ABRET, JCAHPO, IBHRE or state hearing-aid dispenser registration are usually the ceiling — real credentials with exams and CEUs, but the neurologist, ophthalmologist or nephrologist signs the interpretation and carries the malpractice exposure, and in several states parts of this bucket can be trained on the job with no credential at all.

Trust premium 10/20

Some relationship component 10 sits above anonymous work because dialysis and sleep-lab techs see the same patients on a fixed schedule and hearing-aid specialists do repeat fittings where the patient asks for you by name, but the referring physician chose the department, not you, and most encounters are one-off diagnostic tests where the patient never learns your last name.

Judgment & accountability 8/20

Meaningful discretion 8 fits because you make real in-the-moment calls — recognizing artifact versus true epileptiform discharge and re-prepping the electrode, aborting a test when a patient's vitals shift, deciding a reading is unusable and repeating it — but the protocol dictates the montage, the sequence and the thresholds, and the diagnostic call and treatment decision belong to the supervising physician.

Confidence: medium · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works

What this job involves — and which parts are yours

The verdict above describes this occupation as a whole. Almost nobody does the typical version of a job — tick what's actually in your week and see how your own mix sits.

AI already does these at usable quality

These still need a person

Active moats on the surviving side: embodiment, trust, physical-presence

How to future-proof this job

Where to go deeper on what this job runs on: Coursera — active listening and communication skills free to audit · Coursera — active listening and communication skills free to audit · Coursera — communication and interpersonal skills free to audit · Coursera — customer service and client-facing skill courses free to audit · Toastmasters — public speaking practice at local clubs worldwide low · Coursera — active listening and communication skills free to audit

All 35 skills ranked by how many jobs they open →

What would move this back up — beyond any one person

The moves above are yours to make. This is the other half: what would have to change in the world for the occupation itself to score higher. None of it is in any one person's gift, but it is where the floor actually comes from. Scores here are not a one-way ratchet. Only two of the five dimensions — task resistance and embodiment — track what machines can do. The other three track law, what buyers will pay for, and who is answerable, and those move in both directions, often in response to the same pressure AI creates. If every lever below landed, this occupation would score around 72/100 — SAFE.

5 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening task resistance +3

    Task-mix shift in the specialties that genuinely have two tiers: if AI absorbs waveform screening and note drafting, the remaining shift is artifact discrimination, electrode impedance troubleshooting, patient-state judgment (is this a seizure or is the patient scratching), and provocation-test decisions during a live study. Watch for job postings that drop 'preliminary interpretation' and add 'protocol modification authority'.

  • plausible liability shield +5

    State-level conversion of voluntary certification into mandatory licensure for specific sub-specialties, with the tech named as the signing party on the raw study record. Neurodiagnostics is the live example: ABRET-credentialed EEG techs are already required by some state Medicaid and Joint Commission-surveyed epilepsy monitoring units, and several states (e.g. New Jersey, Louisiana bills on polysomnographic technologist licensure) have moved sleep techs from registration to license. A CMS condition-of-participation requiring a licensed technologist attestation that the AI-flagged waveform matches the patient's recorded electrode placement would put personal accountability on the tech for study integrity.

  • plausible judgment accountability +4

    Formal in-study escalation authority written into hospital protocol — e.g. AASM or ABRET practice standards granting the technologist standing authority to abort or modify a titration, terminate an evoked-potential study, or call a rapid response without waiting for physician contact. This exists informally in most sleep labs and EMUs; codifying it as documented, auditable decision ownership is the change.

  • plausible liability shield +3

    Dialysis: an ESRD Conditions for Coverage amendment requiring a certified technician to be the identified accountable operator for machine parameter changes rather than the supervising nurse. CMS already mandates state certification for dialysis techs where a state program exists; extending named-operator liability to AI-suggested UF rate or conductivity adjustments is a narrow, recognizable rule change.

  • plausible judgment accountability +3

    Intraoperative neuromonitoring is the sub-bucket where alarm calls are already consequential and litigated (surgeons have been sued over IONM alerts not relayed). If accreditation requires an on-site credentialed technologist to own the alert decision rather than a remote physician oversight-reader model, accountability concentrates in the role.

The limit. Trust premium has no plausible route: patients do not select or pay extra for a specific EEG or ophthalmic tech, and purchasing is institutional. Embodiment is already near ceiling at 16 and can only fall. Because this is a catch-all SOC, every liability lever is sub-specialty specific — licensure gains for IONM or sleep techs do not lift ophthalmic assistants or hearing aid fitters, so the aggregate score for the bucket will move far less than any one specialty's.

These are conditions, not forecasts — what would have to happen, not what will. Specific rules, cases and bills are named so you can go and check whether they exist and where they stand; verify before relying on any of them. Nothing here is legal or financial advice.

Where this work is, and what it pays there

BLS metro figures for 336 areas. The verdict above does not change by city — the rubric judges what the work involves, not where it happens — but pay and headcount do, and the national median hides a very wide range.

Most of these jobs

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ 12,400 $61,440 +22%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 9,940 $59,210 +18%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 5,000 $49,370 -2%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 4,400 $49,870 -1%
Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX 4,010 $49,500 -2%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 3,630 $55,530 +10%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 3,590 $54,290 +8%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN 3,540 $50,240 +0%

Best paid

Kennewick-Richland, WA 420 $105,650 +110%
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 1,330 $81,170 +61%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 3,070 $71,360 +42%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $50,290. Counts are jobs in that metro, not vacancies. Metros where the BLS suppressed the cell are absent rather than shown as zero.

Who is actually doing this — nobody, on the record

We have no reported case of a named organisation automating this occupation. Not one deployment, not one announcement.

That is worth saying out loud next to a score of 54. The verdict above is about what the work exposes — what current AI could do to these tasks. It is not a claim that anyone has done it. For this occupation those two things have come apart completely: the capability argument is on this page, and the evidence column is empty.

Read that as a gap in the reporting we can see, not proof of absence — the dispatch runs on English-language feeds and misses plenty. If you know of a case, tell us, or add a field report from inside the job.

Quick take — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work? One tap, anonymous, and the running tally is public. Nothing else is asked of you.

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

Field reports — what people say has changed

No field reports yet. A written account takes a paragraph rather than a tap, goes to an editor before it appears, and is the one thing on this page the rubric cannot produce on its own.

File a field report

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.

Watch this verdict
Kept current

Rather than check back: get the digest and we'll tell you what changed — or watch a single occupation from its own page.