Skip to content

Session Expired

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

Sign In Again

OH HB579: Regulate the use of artificial intelligence by health insurers

In Committee Ohio · 2025–2026 session

Last verified Oct 17, 2026 · official bill text

HB579 · where it stands

1 of 5 steps complete
  1. Introduced In committee
  2. Passed first chamber
  3. Passed both chambers
  4. Enacted
  5. Effective
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

Ohio's HB 579, the House companion to SB 164 with identical text, would add section 3902.80 requiring health plan issuers to report annually to the superintendent of insurance on their use of AI-based algorithms in utilization review, and barring decisions about a covered person's care based solely on AI results. Medical necessity determinations would require a licensed physician or qualified provider. Introduced November 5, 2025; referred to the House Insurance Committee November 12, 2025.

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

What it means for business

None unless enacted: the bill is in committee. If enacted, health plan issuers using AI in utilization review would have to file annual reports and have a licensed physician or qualified provider decide medical necessity.

Key provisions

  1. Would require each health plan issuer to file an annual report by March 1 with the superintendent of insurance on whether it uses AI-based algorithms in utilization review, including algorithm criteria, training data sets, the algorithm itself and outcomes
  2. Would require the report to include data on how long a human reviewer spends on each adverse determination, verified by an officer of the issuer
  3. Would bar a health plan issuer from deciding care, including denying, delaying or modifying services on medical necessity, based solely on the results of AI
  4. Would require medical necessity determinations to be made by a licensed physician or qualified provider who considers the requesting provider's recommendation and the patient's history and circumstances
  5. Would require any denial, delay or modification that used an AI-based algorithm to come with a plain-language explanation of the rationale
  6. Would let the superintendent audit an issuer's use of AI-based algorithms at any time; applies to plans issued, amended or renewed on or after the section's effective date
  7. Status: referred to House Insurance Committee on November 12, 2025; pending

Latest legislative action

Nov 12, 2025. Referred to committee (House Insurance)

Sponsors (showing 5 of 37)

NameRole
Primary
R Primary
Primary
R Primary
D 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