Skip to content

Session Expired

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

Sign In Again

LA SB246: Establishes requirements for health insurance issuers using artificial intelligence or automated decision systems. (8/1/26)

Dead/Failed Louisiana · 2026 session

Last verified Oct 10, 2026 · official bill text

SB246 · where it stands

This bill did not become law (dead/failed) · last action May 28, 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

Louisiana's SB246 would have set rules for health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers and independent review organizations that use AI or automated decision systems in utilization review: no use that denies, delays or modifies care, adverse determinations signed by a physician who reviewed the record, disclosure of AI use, and a presumption that AI-influenced adverse decisions are invalid on appeal. The Senate withdrew it from its files May 28, 2026, so it died.

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

What it means for business

None: the bill was withdrawn and never became law. Health insurers using AI in utilization review would have faced physician sign-off, disclosure and audit duties.

Key provisions

  1. Would have barred AI or automated decision systems that discriminate, delay, deny or modify healthcare services, or that base decisions solely on a group data set (R.S. 22:1260.49(C))
  2. AI could not replace a healthcare provider's role; every adverse determination had to be signed by a licensed physician who personally reviewed the medical record (22:1260.49(D))
  3. Issuers would have had to disclose AI use to the enrollee and the department, document its influence, and review AI performance at least quarterly
  4. An adverse determination to which AI materially contributed would have been presumed invalid on appeal unless the issuer showed independent documented clinical judgment (22:1260.49(E))
  5. The commissioner could inspect, audit and require independent review of the systems, at the issuer's expense; adverse-determination notices had to state whether AI was used
  6. Would have applied to policies issued on or after January 1, 2027, with existing policies conforming by renewal and no later than January 1, 2028; the text states no penalty

Latest legislative action

May 28, 2026. Read by title; withdrawn from the files of the Senate

Sponsors

NameRoleDistrict
D Sponsor SD-015
D Sponsor SD-029

Amendments (6)

  • Senate Committee Amendment #748 INS Draft Not adopted
  • Senate Committee Amendment #747 INS Draft Not adopted
  • Senate Committee Amendment #681 INS Draft Not adopted
  • Senate Committee Amendment #679 INS Draft Not adopted
  • Senate Committee Amendment #772 INS Proposed Not adopted
  • Senate Floor Legislative Bureau Amendment #876 Miller G. Proposed Not adopted

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