Skip to content

Session Expired

Your session has expired. Please sign in again to continue where you left off.

Sign In Again

AL HB515: Artificial intelligence; regulate use in health coverage decisions

Dead/Failed Alabama · 2025 session

Last verified Oct 8, 2026 · official bill text

HB515 · where it stands

This bill did not become law (dead/failed) · last action Apr 3, 2025.

What do these statuses mean?
Introduced
Filed in the legislature; may be waiting for a committee hearing.
Passed a chamber
Approved by one or both chambers; awaiting further action.
Enacted
Signed into law, or became law without a signature or over a veto.
Effective date
The date the law says it takes effect. Once it has passed, the page shows "Effective" and the date. A court order can still block a law; if we know of one, the summary says so.
Dead / vetoed
Vetoed, failed, or the session ended without action.

In one paragraph

Alabama's HB 515 (2025, as introduced) would have limited how health insurers use AI, algorithms or other software in utilization review. Medical necessity determinations would always have been made by a licensed physician or other competent health care professional. Insurers would have had to disclose AI use to enrollees and contracting providers, periodically review outcomes, and face civil suits for compensatory or punitive damages. Introduced April 3, 2025 and referred to the House Committee on Insurance; it died in committee when the 2025 session ended.

Plain-English summary, written with AI assistance. The official text controls.

What it means for business

None: the bill died and did not become law. It would have required health insurers to keep a licensed professional in medical-necessity decisions, disclose AI use and face civil suits.

Key provisions

  1. Would have applied to insurers that use AI, an algorithm or other software, or contract with others to do so, for utilization management or review based on medical necessity
  2. Coverage determinations would have had to use the patient's relevant clinical history and unique circumstances, not rely solely on a group dataset, not ignore provider decision-making, and not discriminate in violation of state or federal law
  3. Medical necessity would always have been determined by a licensed physician or other health care professional competent to evaluate any AI recommendation
  4. Insurers would have had to give prominent written disclosure of AI use to enrollees and contracting providers, periodically review AI use and outcomes (including denial and modification rates), and keep patient data within its intended purpose consistent with HIPAA
  5. An injured person could have sued for compensatory or punitive damages, injunctive relief, and costs and attorney fees; the Department of Insurance could have adopted enforcement rules
  6. Would have taken effect October 1, 2025
  7. Status: introduced April 3, 2025 and referred to the House Committee on Insurance; died in committee, never passed by either house

Latest legislative action

Apr 3, 2025. Read for the first time and referred to the House Committee on Insurance

Sponsors (showing 5 of 7)

NameRole
Primary
Primary
Primary
D Primary
Primary

Related and companion bills

Topics and industries

Affected industries

This page is general information, not legal advice. Summaries are AI-assisted and may contain errors; read the statute for the controlling text and talk to a lawyer about your situation. Full disclaimer · Report an error