Skip to content

Session Expired

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

Sign In Again

HI SB2281: Relating To The Use Of Artificial Intelligence In Health Care.

Dead/Failed Hawaii · 2026 session

Last verified Oct 10, 2026 · official bill text

SB2281 · where it stands

This bill did not become law (dead/failed) · last action Feb 18, 2026.

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

Hawaii's Senate Bill 2281 (2026), as amended in SD 1, would have set rules for health care providers using artificial intelligence. Providers would have had to disclose AI in remote patient communications and, for AI-assisted decisions with a significant effect on a patient's health, give notice and a written statement of reasons, allow correction and appeal, keep human oversight and keep records. It passed Senate second reading but was not enacted. The text stated the Act would take effect January 30, 2050, with the new part taking effect July 1, 2028.

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

What it means for business

None: the bill was not enacted. If enacted, health care providers using AI would have faced disclosure, notice, appeal, oversight and record duties from July 1, 2028.

Key provisions

  1. Would have required providers using AI to interact with patients by remote communication to disclose it clearly and conspicuously, with instructions for reaching a natural-person provider
  2. For AI used to make or substantially influence a consequential decision, providers would have had to give prior written notice with an opt-out of profiling and, afterward, a written statement of the decision's principal reasons
  3. Would have required an opportunity to correct data and to appeal, including human review where technically feasible unless an appeal is not in the patient's best interest
  4. Would have required AI oversight personnel to review and validate or override AI outputs, plus monitoring, regular performance evaluations for bias and safety risks, and an AI inventory and records
  5. Would have directed the Department of Health, in coordination with DBEDT, to adopt rules under chapter 91; the text sets no penalty or enforcement mechanism
  6. Passed Senate second reading as SD 1 February 18, 2026 and referred to CPN/WAM; no later action; stated effective date January 30, 2050, with the new part (section 1) effective July 1, 2028

Latest legislative action

Feb 18, 2026. Report adopted; Passed Second Reading, as amended (SD 1) and referred to CPN/WAM.

Sponsors (showing 5 of 25)

NameRole
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary

Roll call votes

The committee(s) on HHS recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. Feb 4, 2026

5 yea0 nayPassed

The committee(s) on LBT recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. Feb 4, 2026

4 yea0 nay1 otherPassed

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