Healthcare recruiting strategies that help physician practices compete for clinical and non-clinical talent

The healthcare job market is in a period of notable flux. Clinical job applications jumped 10% in January 2026, yet a widening gap between open positions and actual hires suggests that getting candidates through the door is only half the battle. Practices competing against large hospital systems face unique challenges — and unique advantages — when it comes to attracting and retaining both clinical and non-clinical staff. From pay transparency to AI adoption, the strategies that separate successful hiring organizations from perpetually understaffed ones are becoming clearer. Medical Economics spoke with Trent Cotton, head of talent insights at iCIMS, about what the data shows and what physician practices can do about it.

Medical Economics: The February 2026 Insights report noted a 10% jump in clinical role applications in January. What's driving that shift?

Trent Cotton: It's really interesting. There was a pretty large jump, but there was also a really large pullback — not just in healthcare but across the market — in November. Part of that was seasonal; we typically see a little bit of a decline. But on the medical side, that January jump was pretty notable. Throughout last year, application volume stayed at a relatively decent level.

From being on-site with some of our clients, they're starting to see a little bit of an uptick, especially on the clinical side. There was a huge bump in turnover right after COVID, understandably, and things kind of leveled out. What we're seeing now is that some candidates on the clinical side may be looking for different opportunities — especially considering some of the economic constraints going on — and seeing this as an opportunity to increase their compensation.

Medical Economics: Clinical openings are up 20%, but hires are only up 5%. What's causing that gap?

TC: Healthcare is a very regulated industry. I spend a lot of time talking to our healthcare clients, and what they're telling me is that there are a lot of candidates at the top of the funnel, but getting them through the process is the challenge. There's a huge dropout rate after the application. Candidates may get through the recruiter interview, but then getting them from that recruiter interview to the hiring manager — there's a drop-off there. I don't know if that's because the market is moving and candidates are simply responding to whoever moves quickest, like doing the interview within the first 48 hours rather than putting it off a week.

Beyond that, there's also the bottleneck of getting offer approvals and navigating all the bureaucracy once an offer is accepted. A lot of healthcare talent acquisition professionals I've talked to are really trying to solve the same question: how do you fast-track top talent from hello to hire?

Medical Economics: For practices competing against hospital systems for clinical talent, what specific strategies are working right now?

TC: It's all about candidate experience. The best way that smaller, non-enterprise organizations can compete is to offer a more personal experience. Candidates feel there's a huge disconnect in the hiring process — they often blame AI, but I think it's more of a recruiting process problem overall.

If I were advising a practice, I'd ask: how do you make the candidate experience feel like an Amazon shopping experience? In our frontline hiring report, we surveyed over 1,000 candidates, and they cited that 60% of the time they abandon an application — the number one reason being that it's too long. The second reason is lack of pay transparency, followed closely by skills and qualifications not matching up. The more clarity you can provide on the front end, and the more personal the experience feels, the better your chances when competing against an enterprise-level hospital.

Medical Economics: The data shows 25 applicants per opening. Does that mean practices finally have some negotiating power on compensation, or are candidates still commanding premium packages?

TC: I don't know that the data really tells us either way. I don't hear anything from the field suggesting that employers now have more negotiating power. I really don't have the data to support a yes or a no on that.

Medical Economics: What about pay transparency — is there any good reason not to list compensation for a position?

TC: I would love to say no, but let me put my HR hat on. One of the concerns that typically comes up on the HR and hiring manager side is: if we post the pay for a new role, and current staff see it and it's higher than what they're making — because the market is now commanding more — then you'd have to right-size your workforce. A lot of organizations would like to do that, but simply don't have the budget. That was the biggest obstacle I heard consistently from both hiring managers and HR business partners.

That said, pay transparency is becoming an increasingly pronounced expectation from candidates. If you can only pay $70,000 and the candidate applying expects $100,000 but doesn't find that out until the offer stage, you've wasted an enormous amount of time for all three people involved — the recruiter, the hiring manager, and the candidate. Putting pay transparency on the front end keeps the top of the funnel clean.

Medical Economics: Non-clinical applications outpace openings and hires. What's happening on that side?

TC: It's a bit of a conundrum. Companies still need someone to take care of patients, and there's still a high level of personal touch required in this industry. So as openings increase, hiring is still slow — and it comes back to the same bottlenecks we see on the clinical side.

We surveyed our clients and found that both candidates and managers say the screening and interview process is the most laborious part. They're looking to technology to solve that, especially around interview scheduling. I have personally lost years of my life scheduling and rescheduling interviews. Candidates want ease of use — get me to the hiring manager and push me through. And managers want something equally easy and informative. That's a major bottleneck the healthcare recruiting industry is definitely going to have to tackle.

Medical Economics: For practices that are understaffed on the non-clinical side, is now the time to move and fill those positions?

TC: You've got to move, because if that applicant volume dips even a little for two or three consecutive months and you haven't built the pipeline, you're in trouble. Application volume was pretty high in Q2 and Q3 of last year, so I would strongly encourage anyone hiring on the non-clinical side to have a candidate management system in place. Go back to your silver and bronze medalists from previous roles and try to re-engage them while also working through your current applicant list. That's a missed opportunity a lot of organizations overlook.

My concern is this: if openings continue to increase at the current rate and hiring continues to stall below year-over-year levels, there will come a point where non-clinical candidates go look at other frontline, high-volume roles outside the industry — and you don't want to miss that window.

Medical Economics: The report mentions removing friction from the hiring process. What does friction look like, and what can be done about it?

TC: Friction is essentially any point in the recruiting process where candidates drop off or get frustrated. On the candidate side, they want a streamlined application process, pay transparency, and AI that actually looks at their skill set and suggests relevant roles. They also want to be able to demonstrate their skills.

What we're seeing in the market — especially with Gen Z — is that AI has democratized resume building, so resumes have become somewhat commoditized. Gen Z is responding by saying, "If I can't compete on the resume side, let me show my skills through job simulations or assessments." That's pretty significant, because for the last 20 years candidates have resisted assessments. We're starting to see that tide shift. They want to be matched to the right role, not just get any job.

On the manager side, they want the same thing. They have limited time, especially for high-volume non-clinical roles, and they're asking: which candidate is the best skill match for this role? Having that piece in the process helps both sides, reduces screening friction, and would likely increase candidate retention through to the offer stage.

Medical Economics: What separates practices that retain staff from those that are constantly hiring?

TC: Retention is primarily driven by two things. First, you have to make sure you're selecting the right person — matching skills and experience directly to the role. When that fit is there, retention goes up. Managers want it, candidates want it.

The other piece is career pathing. Especially for high-volume and entry-level roles, candidates want to come in and understand what comes next. They want to know what the organization is going to invest in them to develop their skills. A lot of candidates don't necessarily want to keep moving from job to job, but they have to because they can't see a path forward internally. Organizations that can lay out that career path, even within the first year, are going to see significantly better retention than those that don't.

Medical Economics: Do smaller practices that rely on personal touch have an advantage over large health systems using AI to sort through candidates?

TC: I think it really depends on where you're leveraging AI. The first step is to map out your recruiting process and ask: what steps are uniquely human? Even as an avid AI advocate, there are parts of the process I want a human handling. The hiring manager interview should be human. A recruiter should sit down and have a deeper conversation — not just to confirm skills, but to understand whether this is actually the career path the candidate will stick with. And the offer should definitely be human.

Everything else is negotiable. Automated calendar scheduling, pre-qualification assessments, certain screening steps — those can be handled by technology. But I don't think a hospital using automated scheduling is necessarily at a disadvantage compared to a practice doing it manually. It really comes down to how and where you're using AI in the process.

Medical Economics: Looking 12 to 18 months out, what do you think the job market looks like for clinical and non-clinical roles?

TC: A lot of the data I look at points to growing concern about a shrinking supply of candidates over the next several years. I was just on the phone today with three healthcare recruiters who are already thinking about how to get ahead of that — partnering with local universities, getting early talent in the pipeline, helping to shape curriculum.

Over the next 12 to 18 months, I think healthcare recruiting is going to have to start thinking differently. If supply continues to constrict, you're going to have to get creative and actively work to build new pipelines.

Medical Economics: Any final advice for practice managers and physicians?

TC: There's a lot of AI noise out there, so I'll go back to something I said earlier: map out your candidate journey. Ask yourself what steps can only be handled by a human — and I mean only a human. Then ask what could or should be automated, what could or should be handled by AI, and build a roadmap from there.

Once you start implementing that roadmap and have the right governance in place, share it with candidates. When someone applies, pop up a simple message: "Thank you for applying. Here's where you are in the process. Here's where we use humans, here's where there's automation, and here's where there's AI." That transparency on the front end will do more for your candidate experience than almost anything else.