Skip to content

Session Expired

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

Sign In Again

MS HB1717: Mississippi Medical Judgement Protection Act; create.

Dead/Failed Mississippi · 2026 session

Last verified Oct 10, 2026 · official bill text

HB1717 · where it stands

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

Mississippi's HB 1717 (2026), the Mississippi Medical Judgment Protection Act, would require a provider or facility whose clinical AI materially contributes to a diagnosis, treatment plan, order or clinical note to disclose that in the medical record and have a licensed clinician accept or reject it. It would bar payers from issuing automated denials or delays of coverage or payment, and require adverse determinations to be reviewed and signed by a physician. It died in committee on February 3, 2026.

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

What it means for business

None: the bill died and never became law. It would have required providers to disclose and clinician-approve AI in care and barred payers from automated coverage denials.

Key provisions

  1. Providers or facilities using clinical AI that materially contributes to care would have to disclose it in the medical record and get a licensed clinician's electronic attestation accepting or rejecting the suggestion
  2. Patient portals would have to show a plain-language notice when AI contributed to care, including the right to request a human explanation or human-only processing where feasible
  3. AI that automatically inserts diagnoses or orders into a chart, problem list or claim without clinician acceptance would be prohibited
  4. AI outputs would be advisory only; systems would have to keep tamper-resistant audit logs of the reviewing clinician's identity, credentials and the date and time of review
  5. Diagnosis codes for billing or risk adjustment could not be submitted if originated solely from AI without corroborating documentation and clinician attestation
  6. Section 7: a payer may not issue an automated denial or delay of coverage or payment; adverse determinations would have to be reviewed and signed by a physician with an unrestricted US license in the same or a similar specialty (a dentist for dental services)
  7. Per its title, payers would file annual AI-use reports with the Department of Insurance; licensing authorities, the Department of Insurance and the Division of Medicaid would enforce, with delayed enforcement of certain provisions and safe harbors (captured text is cut off before those sections)
  8. Referred to Public Health and Human Services January 19, 2026; died in committee February 3, 2026

Latest legislative action

Feb 3, 2026. Died In Committee

Sponsors (showing 5 of 13)

NameRole
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary

Roll call votes

Passage Mar 19, 2025

50 yea1 nayPassed

Passage Mar 11, 2025

112 yea1 nay7 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