Healthcare AI Regulation

Enacts the New York privacy act to require companies to disclose their methods of de-identifying personal information, to place special safeguards around data sharing and to allow consumers to obtain the names of all entities with whom their information is shared.

New York's A 8158 (the "New York privacy act") would add General Business Law Article 42-A (§§ 1200-1207). Among other consumer rights, people could opt out of "profiling in furtherance of decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects" (such as lending, housing, insurance, employment and health care), and controllers would have to run data protection assessments for profiling that presents a reasonably foreseeable risk of unfair treatment or unlawful disparate impact. Only the Attorney General could enforce it, with penalties of up to $20,000 per violation. Introduced May 2, 2025 and referred to Consumer Affairs and Protection (again January 7, 2026); not passed.

relative to the use of artificial intelligence to provide services requiring a professional license.

New Hampshire's SB 640 (2026), as amended by the Senate, would bar anyone from offering mental health or therapy services, including through AI, unless provided by a New Hampshire licensed mental health professional, reenact RSA 310:13 on unlicensed practice with a $10,000 civil penalty per violation, and create a review commission. It passed the Senate March 12, 2026; the House voted it Inexpedient to Legislate on May 14, 2026.

HEAL-AI Act Healthcare Education in AI Literacy Act

The federal H.R. 6077 (HEAL-AI Act, Healthcare Education in AI Literacy Act) would amend the Public Health Service Act to create a Health Resources and Services Administration competitive grant program, with grants of up to $100,000 a year, for medical schools and residency sponsors to train students, residents and faculty in using AI in medicine. Referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee November 18, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.

Companion chatbots: crisis interruption pauses.

California's AB 1988, the Preventing AI User Self Endangerment (PAUSE) Act, would have required companion chatbot operators to adopt a public policy for credible crisis expressions (intent to harm self or others), warn the user on the first one, and on a second within 72 hours start a crisis interruption pause that continues until a human moderator reviews the chat. It passed the Assembly 73-0 on May 21, 2026; its three Senate committee hearings (June 12, 22 and 26) were canceled at the author's request, and the bill died. It did not become law.

Advertisement claims: health-related consumer products and services: digital replicas and synthetic performers.

California's SB 1146 (Gonzalez) would add Business and Professions Code 651.4, requiring a person who creates an advertisement for a health-related consumer product or service that includes a digital replica or synthetic performer depicted as a health care provider to include a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the provider was AI-generated or altered or that no human provider is depicted. Passed the Senate 36-0 on May 18, 2026; held in Assembly Appropriations August 13, 2026; it did not pass.

Algorithmic Addiction Fund - Establishment

Maryland's SB 602 (2026, first reader text, cross-filed with HB 715) would have created the Algorithmic Addiction Fund, administered by the Maryland Department of Health, to hold civil penalties the State receives from judgments or settlements over harm to children from social media and improper use of algorithms, for prevention, intervention and treatment programs. The fund would start only after such a judgment or settlement. It had a Senate Finance hearing set for February 24, 2026 and died when the 2026 session ended.

Algorithmic Addiction Fund – Establishment

Maryland's HB 715 (2026, first reader text, cross-filed with SB 602) would have created the Algorithmic Addiction Fund, administered by the Maryland Department of Health, to hold civil penalties the State receives from judgments or settlements over harm to children from social media and improper use of algorithms, for prevention, intervention and treatment programs. The fund would start only after such a judgment or settlement. It had a hearing set for March 10, 2026 in House Appropriations and died when the 2026 session ended.

Consumer Protection - High-Risk Artificial Intelligence - Developer and Deployer Requirements

Maryland's SB 936 (2025) would have added Commercial Law sections 14-47A-01 to 14-47A-08 requiring developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems used for consequential decisions to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination starting February 1, 2026, with impact assessments, consumer notices and appeals. The Attorney General would enforce, with fines up to $1,000 per violation ($1,000 to $10,000 if willful). A Senate Finance hearing was set for February 27, 2025; the bill went no further and died when the session ended.

Consumer Protection - Companion Chatbots - Regulation

Maryland's HB 952 (2026, third reader text) would have required operators of companion chatbots available to Maryland users to keep and publish self-harm and minor sexual-content protocols, display warnings that the chatbot is not human (a persistent on-screen warning plus pop-ups at the start and after every hour of continuous use), limit personal data use, and run a complaint system. A chatbot would be treated as a product with strict liability exposure. It passed the House 123-4, was referred to Senate Finance, and died when the 2026 session ended.

Relating To The Patients' Bill Of Rights.

Hawaii's HB 2537 (2026), the Patients' Bill of Rights, would have amended HRS chapter 432E for managed care plans. It would set prior authorization deadlines (one business day urgent, three non-urgent), require notice and independent board-certified clinician review before an adverse action to which an automated decision support tool materially contributed, and require governance and bias-testing records by June 30, 2027. It was referred to HLT and CPC February 2, 2026 and died.

Relating To Artificial Intelligence.

Hawaii's SB 2967 (2026) would have added a part to HRS chapter 480 regulating businesses ('deployers') that use AI systems or automated decision tools with consumers. They would have to disclose AI interactions, give notice and explanation, correction, appeal and human review for AI-influenced consequential decisions, keep risk programs, do annual impact assessments and report incidents within 90 days. A violation would be an unfair or deceptive act. The Senate committee on LBT deferred it February 11, 2026; it died.

Relating To Health Care.

Hawaii's SB 2768 (2026) would have barred health carriers and utilization review organizations from using AI, algorithms or software tools to deny, delay or modify a determination to provide health care services, and would have required a licensed health care provider to independently review any adverse action before a carrier issues it. It was referred to HHS/LBT and CPN on January 30, 2026 and was not enacted.

Relating To Artificial Intelligence.

Hawaii's HB 2500 (2026) would have added a chapter on algorithmic decision systems. Developers would have to give deployers risk disclosures; deployers would have to give notice before use and post-decision information (including the 20 most influential characteristics) when a system affects education, employment, finance, government services, health care, housing, insurance or legal services; generative AI would have to be disclosed to users. Developers and deployers would be jointly and severally liable for violations facilitated by the deployer. House committee ECD deferred it February 6, 2026; it died.

Artificial intelligence chatbot technology requirements provided, and cause of action for harm created.

Not law. Minnesota's HF 4452 would have added Minn. Stat. 604.115 barring chatbot proprietors from letting chatbots give substantive medical, mental health or legal advice that would require a license, with a private right of action a notice could not waive, and requiring clear notice that users are talking to an AI. Companion chatbot operators would have had to suspend use for at least 72 hours and show crisis contacts on self-harm, and would be liable if they knew of it and failed to act. Introduced March 18, 2026.

Algorithm and AI use prohibited during health insurance prior authorization request review.

Minnesota's HF 2500 would have barred a health carrier from using an algorithm or artificial intelligence program when deciding whether to approve or deny a prior authorization request. It would have applied to health plans offered, sold, issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2026. Introduced March 17, 2025 and referred to Commerce Finance and Policy and it never left committee.

Prior authorization usage of algorithms or artificial intelligence prohibition provision

Minnesota's SF 3984 would have barred a health carrier from using an algorithm or artificial intelligence program when deciding whether to approve or deny a prior authorization request. It would have applied to health plans offered, sold, issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2026. Introduced February 26, 2026 and referred to Commerce and Consumer Protection and it never left committee.

AI for America Act

The AI for America Act (H.R. 6304) would require the Office of Science and Technology Policy to submit an AI action plan to Congress by July 31, 2027, identify regulatory barriers to AI adoption in healthcare, scientific research and transportation, and have NIST report on detecting security risks and ideological bias in AI. Referred to the House Science, Space, and Technology and Energy and Commerce Committees on November 25, 2025; it has not passed either house.

Mandatory Human Reviews of Insurance Claim Denials

Not law: passed the House but died in the Senate when the session ended. Florida's CS/CS/HB 527 (2026) would have let workers' compensation carriers, insurers and HMOs use AI to help process claims but barred AI from being the sole basis for denying or reducing a claim; a qualified human professional would have had to review the facts independently and decide, keep records, and tell claimants in writing. The House passed it 108-0 on March 5, 2026; it died in Senate Rules on March 13, 2026.

An act relating to artificial intelligence

Vermont's H.821 (2026) would have required anyone using generative AI to interact with consumers to clearly disclose, when asked, that the consumer is dealing with AI, and would have required licensed professionals to disclose high-risk generative AI interactions. Violations would have been unfair and deceptive acts enforced by the Attorney General, and a person could not blame generative AI as a defense. It would also have added members to the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council and required a report by January 15, 2027. Referred to committee January 29, 2026; died.

An act relating to the use of artificial intelligence in health care coverage decisions

Vermont's H.776 (2026) would have added 18 V.S.A. 9423 on AI in health care coverage decisions. A health plan using an AI tool, algorithm or software for utilization review would have had to base determinations on the insured's clinical history and circumstances, not rely solely on a group dataset, apply it consistently, allow Department of Financial Regulation audits, and review it at least quarterly. AI could not deny, delay or modify coverage; adverse determinations would have been made only by a licensed human provider. Referred to committee January 27, 2026; died.

Artificial Intelligence Amendments

Utah's HB 452 regulates mental health chatbots: generative AI that holds therapy-like conversations and that the supplier represents, or a reasonable person would believe, can provide mental health therapy or help manage mental health conditions. Suppliers may not sell or share Utah users' identifiable health information or input (limited exceptions), may not use input to target or tailor ads, must label in-chat ads, and must disclose the chatbot is AI before access, after seven days of non-use and when asked. Fines up to $2,500 per violation. Signed March 25, 2025; effective May 7, 2025.

DFPR-AI-MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE

Illinois's HB 5649 (103rd General Assembly) would have made it an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act for a licensed mental health professional to provide mental health services through AI without first obtaining the patient's informed consent and disclosing the use of AI tools, with matching grounds for discipline in the professional licensing Acts. It was not passed before the 103rd General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 7, 2025).

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

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.

Provides for the regulation of mental health chatbots that use artificial intelligence technology. (gov sig)

Louisiana's SB5 would have required operators of AI mental health chatbots to disclose clearly that the chatbot is AI and not a human, to maintain protocols for suicidal ideation, self-harm and harm to others, and not to sell or share users' identifiable health information. It would also have restricted advertising in chatbot conversations. The Attorney General could seek fines up to $10,000 per violation after a 45-day cure notice. It stayed in Senate Health and Welfare and died.

Relating to artificial intelligence companions.

Oregon requires operators of AI companion platforms to tell users clearly that they are interacting with artificial output when a reasonable person would believe they were talking to a human, to keep and publish protocols that detect suicidal or self-harm ideation and refer users to crisis resources such as 988, and to add safeguards when the operator knows or has reason to believe a user is a minor. Operators must publish annual reports on crisis referrals, and people harmed can sue. Signed March 31, 2026; takes effect January 1, 2027.

Relating to downcoding.

Not law. Oregon HB 4054 (2026) would have required health insurers that provide utilization review to tell a provider in writing, within two business days after payment, when AI, an algorithm or other software automatically downcoded a claim, giving the reason and appeal rights, and would have given providers a timely appeal. It had a public hearing in the Information Management and Technology committee and was in committee upon adjournment March 6, 2026.

To Prohibit Healthcare Providers And Healthcare Insurers From Using Artificial Intelligence In The Delivery Of Healthcare Services Or The Generation Of Medical Records Unless Certain Requirements Are Met.

Arkansas HB 1816 (2025) would have added Ark. Code § 17-80-123 to bar healthcare providers and healthcare insurers from using artificial intelligence in delivering healthcare services or generating medical records, unless the AI is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and verified by a quality assurance laboratory. It was filed March 17, 2025, referred to the House Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee, and withdrawn by its author on April 14, 2025.

Requires healthcare providers and healthcare facilities to inform patients of the use of artificial intelligence to memorialize patient visits.

Rhode Island S 2570 Substitute A (2026), enacted as Chapter 372, the Use of Artificial Intelligence by Healthcare Providers Notification Act, requires healthcare providers and facilities that use AI to document in-person or telehealth visits to notify patients of the use of AI for that sole purpose and to review the AI-generated documentation for accuracy after the visit. The act states no penalties. Enacted June 22, 2026; effective upon passage.

Relating to the regulation and reporting on the use of artificial intelligence systems by certain business entities and state agencies; providing civil penalties.

Texas HB 1709 (2025), as introduced, the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, would have set duties for developers, distributors and deployers of high-risk AI systems that are a substantial factor in consequential decisions, with attorney general enforcement and civil penalties of $50,000 to $100,000 per uncured violation. It also would have banned certain uses, created a regulatory sandbox and an AI Council. It died when the regular session adjourned June 2, 2025.

Relating to use of artificial intelligence in utilization review conducted for health benefit plans.

Texas HB 2922 (2025), as introduced, would have barred a utilization review agent from using an artificial intelligence-based algorithm as the sole basis for a decision to wholly or partly deny, delay, or modify health care services for an enrollee on medical necessity grounds. Only a physician or licensed health care provider could determine medical necessity, and the insurance commissioner could audit and inspect the agent's use of AI at any time. It did not pass both chambers and died when the session adjourned June 2, 2025.

Relating to the use of artificial intelligence by health care providers.

Texas HB 4455 (2025), as introduced, would have directed the Health and Human Services executive commissioner to adopt rules regulating health care providers' use of artificial intelligence. The rules would have required a provider using AI to use an automated messaging system when messaging patients that discloses AI use and gives contact information for a provider who can answer questions. It did not pass both chambers and died when the session adjourned June 2, 2025.

Relating to the use of artificial intelligence-based algorithms by health benefit plan issuers, utilization review agents, health care providers, and physicians.

Texas SB 1411 (2025), as introduced, would have regulated AI-based algorithms in health coverage and care. Health benefit plan issuers and physicians could not discriminate on race, color, national origin, gender, age, vaccination status or disability using clinical AI algorithms. Issuers would have had to disclose AI use in utilization review, submit algorithms and training data to the insurance department, and have a specialist review before an adverse determination. Physicians and providers could have faced license sanctions and fines up to $5,000 per violation. It died June 2, 2025.

Relating to the use of artificial intelligence-based algorithms in utilization review conducted for certain health benefit plans.

Texas SB 1822 (2025), as engrossed, would have added Insurance Code Sec. 4201.156 requiring health benefit plan issuers and their utilization review agents to disclose whether they use AI-based algorithms in utilization review, ensure the algorithm and its training data minimize bias and follow evidence-based clinical guidelines, and file an annual compliance statement by December 31. It passed the Senate, but no enrolled version exists, so it died June 2, 2025.

AI Grand Challenges Act of 2026

The AI Grand Challenges Act would have the National Science Foundation set up an AI Grand Challenges Program within 12 months of enactment, awarding cash prizes of at least $1 million per winner for AI research that solves well-defined challenges in areas such as national security, cybersecurity, health, energy, agriculture, education, manufacturing and AI safety and transparency. At least one challenge must target AI-enabled cancer breakthroughs, with at least $10 million to each winner. Winners must be U.S.-based businesses or U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Introduced February 9, 2026.

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, relative to criminal offenses.

As introduced, SB 1815 would have made it a crime to own an AI system that encourages a user to commit suicide. That AI provision was removed before passage. The enacted law, the Grace Anne Sparks Coercive Suicide Prevention Law of 2026 (Public Chapter 1098), makes it a Class D felony for a person to intentionally advise or encourage someone to commit or attempt suicide within an imminent period of time, knowing that person has communicated an intent to commit suicide. It does not mention artificial intelligence. Effective July 1, 2026.

Making it unlawful for a person to knowingly train artificial intelligence to encourage or support suicide or the unlawful killing of another person, provide emotional support, develop emotional relationships, act as a healthcare professional, simulate humans or encourage isolation.

Not law. SB 405 would have made it unlawful in Kansas to knowingly train AI, including chatbots, to encourage suicide or killing, give emotional support, act as a companion, pose as a licensed mental health or healthcare professional, act like a human friend, encourage isolation from family, or simulate a human being. The Attorney General or a harmed person could have sued for actual damages or $150,000, plus punitive damages and fees; courts could order the AI shut down until retrained and fine up to $50,000 per violation. It had a hearing on February 9, 2026 and died in committee on April 10, 2026.

AN ACT relating to artificial intelligence and declaring an emergency.

Not law. As passed by the House 88-7 on February 23, 2026, HB 455 would have barred anyone from providing or advertising therapy or psychotherapy in Kentucky, including through internet-based AI, unless a licensed professional performs it. Licensed therapists could have used AI only for administrative and supplementary support such as scheduling, billing and notes, with written notice and consent before using AI on recorded sessions, and AI could not make therapeutic decisions or treatment plans without their approval. Fines up to $10,000 per violation. It reached the Senate but got no further action before the 2026 regular session ended.

Prohibits advertising artificial intelligence system as licensed mental health professional.

New Jersey's A5603 would bar anyone who develops or deploys an AI system in New Jersey from advertising or representing to the public that it is, or can act as, a licensed mental health professional. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act. Introduced May 5, 2025. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29; Title 37 and Title 47, relative to artificial intelligence.

Tennessee Public Chapter 1082 directs the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (TACIR) to study how the state might regulate AI systems and generative AI chatbots. The study must cover federal law, other states' approaches, constitutional limits, costs to government, economic effects on businesses, developers, schools and consumers, and safeguards for minors and mental health, including suicide prevention, with any recommendations for legislation. Introduced as the Curbing Harmful AI Technology (CHAT) Act regulating companion chatbots, it was rewritten into this study. Signed May 22, 2026; effective immediately.

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29; Title 37 and Title 47, relative to artificial intelligence.

HB 1946 is the House companion of SB 1700, which became Tennessee Public Chapter 1082 after the House passed the Senate bill in its place on April 21, 2026. The law directs the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (TACIR) to study how the state might regulate AI systems and generative AI chatbots: federal law, other states' approaches, constitutional limits, costs, economic effects, and safeguards for minors and mental health, including suicide prevention, with any recommendations for legislation. It began as the Curbing Harmful AI Technology (CHAT) Act. Signed May 22, 2026; effective immediately.

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8, Chapter 27; Title 56 and Title 71, relative to health insurance.

Not law. SB 1261 would have regulated how Tennessee health insurers, TennCare and state employee plans use AI, algorithms and software in utilization review. Tools would have had to base decisions on the patient's own clinical history rather than group data alone, not replace provider judgment or discriminate, and be reviewed periodically. AI could not deny, delay or modify care based on medical necessity; only a licensed physician or qualified health professional could decide that. Violations would have been unfair claims practices, with a right to sue. It never left committee and died when the 114th General Assembly adjourned.

Artificial intelligence systems that simulate humanlike relationships with children and providing a penalty.

Not law. AB 965 would have barred operators from making a companion chatbot available to Wisconsin children unless safety measures kept it from encouraging self-harm, suicide, violence, drug or alcohol use or disordered eating; offering mental health services; encouraging illegal acts; sexual content with a child; putting validation ahead of accuracy or safety; or optimizing engagement over those safeguards. Until 2027 it would have applied only when the operator knew the user was a child. Forfeitures up to $25,000 per violation, and harmed children could sue. It failed to pass when the session's floor period ended on March 23, 2026.

An Act Prohibiting Health Insurers From Using Artificial Intelligence To Deny Health Insurance Claims.

Connecticut's HB 5590 (2025) was a short proposed bill with no operative text, stating its intent to amend the general statutes to prohibit any health insurer from using artificial intelligence to deny health insurance claims. It was referred to the Insurance and Real Estate Committee on January 21, 2025 and died when the 2025 session ended.

A bill for an act relating to the requirements for chatbot deployers, including required protocols, limitations on data collection, and requirements for minors to interact with artificial intelligence companions and therapeutic chatbots, and providing civil penalties, punitive penalties, and civil…

Not law. HF 2204 would have required anyone offering a chatbot to the public in Iowa to keep protocols to detect, respond to and reduce harm to users, putting user safety first, and to collect only the data it needs. Deployers would have had to use age verification to keep minors from AI companions (chatbots that simulate a romantic or emotional bond), get permission before offering chatbots that impersonate real people, and meet strict conditions, including a licensed professional's recommendation and clinical trial evidence, before offering therapeutic chatbots to minors. It was referred to committee on January 29, 2026 and died when the 2026 session adjourned.

Artificial intelligence; Responsible Deployment of AI Systems Act; AI Council; AI Regulatory Sandbox Program; Artificial Intelligence Workforce Development Program; effective date.

Oklahoma's HB 1916 (2025-26), as introduced, would have created the Responsible Deployment of AI Systems Act, covering public agencies and private entities that deploy AI systems affecting people in Oklahoma. Deployers would classify AI systems by risk (unacceptable, high, limited, minimal), assess them, and subject high-risk systems to oversight, notices and audits. It was referred to the Rules Committee on February 4, 2025 and died when the 2026 session ended May 14, 2026.

Hospital and Medical Services Utilization Review Act; requiring utilization review organization that uses AI to adhere to requirements; prohibiting AI from making certain determinations. Effective date.

Oklahoma's SB 1967 (2026), as introduced, would have amended the Hospital and Medical Services Utilization Review Act to set conditions on AI tools used in utilization review by review organizations and insurers, including that the tool not supplant provider decision-making; per the official bill summary, the tool could not deny a claim based on medical necessity. It was referred to a Senate committee February 3, 2026 and died when the session ended May 14, 2026.

Mental health professionals: artificial intelligence.

Vetoed. SB 903, the Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act, would have limited AI in California psychotherapy to administrative and supplementary support. Recording or transcribing sessions, or AI triage, would have needed the patient's informed consent, and AI could not make therapeutic decisions, produce diagnoses or treatment plans, detect emotions or screen patients without a licensed professional's review. Companion chatbots could not be marketed as therapy. Governor Newsom vetoed it on September 30, 2026, calling it overly broad and saying it would restrict useful clinical tools and reach general-purpose AI.

Department of Technology: high-risk automated decision systems: inventory.

California's AB 302 required the Department of Technology, by September 1, 2024, to inventory every high-risk automated decision system that state agencies use, develop or procure, or have proposed to, and to report it to two legislative committees by January 1, 2025 and annually after that; the reporting duty becomes inoperative January 1, 2029. High-risk systems assist or replace human decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, such as access to housing, education, employment, credit, health care and criminal justice. It applies only to state agencies. Signed October 13, 2023 (Chapter 800); effective January 1, 2024.

THERAPY RESOURCES OVERSIGHT

Illinois' Public Act 104-0054 (HB 1806) creates the Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act. No one may provide, advertise or offer therapy or psychotherapy services to the public in Illinois, including through Internet-based AI, unless a licensed professional conducts them. Licensed professionals may use AI only for administrative and supplementary support, need written notice and consent for supplementary-support AI on recorded or transcribed sessions, and may not let AI make independent therapeutic decisions, communicate therapeutically with clients or detect emotions or mental states. Civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation. Approved and effective August 1, 2025.

AI Grand Challenges Act of 2026

The federal S. 3809 (AI Grand Challenges Act of 2026) would require the NSF Director, within 12 months after enactment, to establish an AI Grand Challenges Program of prize competitions in 16 areas such as cybersecurity, health and energy, with at least $1,000,000 in cash for each winner and at least $10,000,000 for a cancer challenge. Introduced February 9, 2026 and referred to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee; no further action.

INS-ADVERSE DETERMINATION

Illinois' Public Act 103-0656 (HB 2472) is a broad health insurance act (explanation-of-benefits statements, prior authorization penalties, utilization review accreditation, adverse determinations). Its AI-related part covers algorithmic automated processes in utilization review: even when a plan or utilization review program uses one, only a clinical peer may make an adverse medical necessity determination or review an appeal. Programs using such processes must use objective, evidence-based criteria compliant with URAC or NCQA standards, set by board-certified physicians, and file proof with their registration. Approved July 19, 2024; effective January 1, 2025.

An Act Establishing A Task Force To Study The Effects Of Artificial Intelligence On The Trades Industry.

Connecticut's HB 5497 (2026), in the committee substitute text (File No. 433), would establish a task force to study the effects of artificial intelligence on the trades industry, including job displacement and the Technical Education and Career System's AI coursework, with a report due by January 1, 2027. The House passed it as amended by House Amendment Schedule A on May 6, 2026; it was tabled on the Senate calendar and died when the 2026 session ended May 6, 2026.

Relates to the use of artificial intelligence by insurers and clinical peer reviewers for utilization review; establishes additional notice requirements for adverse determinations.

New York's S 10241 (same as A 11048) would add Insurance Law § 338 and amend the Insurance and Public Health Laws to regulate insurers' use of AI-based algorithms in utilization review. Insurers would give written notice of AI use, submit the algorithms and training data to the superintendent, and could not base a denial, delay or modification of care solely on an algorithm; and, where AI is used, adverse determinations would come only from clinical peer reviewers. Referred to the Senate Insurance Committee May 8, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.

Relating To The Hawaii Patients' Bill Of Rights And Responsibilities Act.

Hawaii's SB 2167 (2026) would have amended HRS chapter 432E, the Patients' Bill of Rights, to set prior authorization deadlines (one business day urgent, three non-urgent) and require that a denial initiated by an automated decision system be reviewed and co-signed by a board-certified specialist, with written notice to enrollees and providers whenever such a system is used. It was referred to HHS and CPN January 26, 2026 and died.

Place requirements on the use of artificial intelligence systems by health carriers in making determinations about the provision of health care services.

South Dakota's SB 169 (2026) would have required health carriers that use AI, algorithms or other software for utilization review to base determinations on the patient's clinical history and circumstances, not rely solely on a group dataset, and apply the tool consistently. AI tools could not deny, delay or modify a determination; only a licensed physician or qualified licensed health professional could make adverse determinations. Introduced January 29, 2026 and withdrawn by the prime sponsor February 17, 2026; it did not pass.

A bill for an act establishing requirements and guidelines for conversational AI services, and providing civil penalties, and including applicability provisions.

Iowa's HF 2507 (formerly HSB 611) would have required operators of conversational AI services to protect minors (AI disclosures, no unpredictable rewards, limits on sexual and human-like content), adopt suicide and self-harm protocols, and not pose as licensed mental health providers. Attorney general penalties were the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per violation up to $500,000 per operator. After amendment H-8357, Senate File 2417 was substituted and HF 2507 was withdrawn April 15, 2026.

A BILL for an Act to provide an appropriation to the agriculture commissioner, the attorney general, the department of career and technical education, the department of health and human services, and the department of transportation to increase the use of uncrewed aircraft systems, autonomous…

North Dakota's HB 1037 (2025), introduced by the Legislative Management Workforce Committee, would have appropriated $750,000 from the general fund to each of five agencies ($3.75 million in total) for grants to increase the use of uncrewed aircraft systems, autonomous vehicles or other autonomous technology, and would have directed a legislative management study of the economic impact of autonomous technology. The House defeated it 12-80 on February 24, 2025.

Health Insurance - Artificial Intelligence - Grievance Process and Reporting (AI Health Insurance Accountability Act of 2026)

Maryland's HB 795 (2026, the AI Health Insurance Accountability Act of 2026) would have required a carrier's internal grievance process to provide human review of adverse decisions made with AI, algorithms or other software tools, and added reporting of those grievances by claim type, member race, gender and profession, and policy type. It was introduced February 4, 2026, assigned to House Health, and withdrawn by its sponsor February 23, 2026, so it died.

Adopt the Artificial Intelligence Consumer Protection Act

Not law. Nebraska LB642, introduced by Senator Bostar, would have enacted the Artificial Intelligence Consumer Protection Act. Developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems that make consequential decisions without human review would have had to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, with impact assessments, consumer notices and appeals, and Attorney General enforcement after a 90-day cure period. Indefinitely postponed April 17, 2026.

An Act Prohibiting Health Insurers From Using Artificial Intelligence As The Primary Method To Deny Health Insurance Claims.

Connecticut's HB 5587 (Rep. Menapace) is a proposed bill that would amend the general statutes to prohibit any health insurer from using artificial intelligence as the primary method to deny health insurance claims. The text is a one-sentence statement of purpose with no definitions, penalties or procedures. Referred to the Joint Committee on Insurance and Real Estate January 21, 2025; it did not advance and died when the 2025 session ended.

HEALTH AI Act Healthcare Enhancement And Learning Through Harnessing Artificial Intelligence Act

The federal H.R. 5045 (HEALTH AI Act) would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a grant program for research on the use of generative AI in health care. Grants would go to universities, 501(c)(3) nonprofits and federal, State, local or Tribal agencies, with priority for entities that encourage adoption, invest in workforce development, reduce burnout or health disparities, or serve underserved populations. Introduced August 26, 2025 and referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee; no further action.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MEDICAL SERVICES – Adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding artifical intelligence medical services.

Idaho's H 945 (2026) would have enacted the AI Medical Services Act (new Title 54, chapter 60), creating an 11-member Board of Autonomous Medical Practice to license 'artificial intelligence augmented and autonomous service providers' (AAASPs) that deliver certain clinical AI services. New licenses would have been provisional for up to two years. L2 and L3 licensees would have owed patient disclosures and a duty of loyalty, and the board could have fined violators up to $10,000 per count or offense. It was introduced March 25, 2026, and then reported printed and referred to the Business Committee (undated), with no later action.

AI-Assisted Therapy Research

Illinois's HB 5003 (104th General Assembly) would amend the Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act so that its prohibitions on unauthorized therapy services do not apply to AI-assisted therapy or psychotherapy provided exclusively within a qualified research program. Academic medical centers would have to register existing qualifying programs within 90 days. Re-referred to Rules Committee on March 27, 2026.

AI USE IN HEALTH INSURANCE ACT

Illinois's HB 5918 (103rd General Assembly) would have created the Artificial Intelligence Systems Use in Health Insurance Act. An insurer could not issue an adverse consumer outcome (denial, reduction or termination of plans or benefits) resulting solely from an AI system or predictive model, and such decisions would need meaningful human review. It was not passed before the 103rd General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 7, 2025).

BIOMETRIC DATA-COMMERCIAL USE

Illinois's HB 2411 (100th General Assembly) would have amended Section 15 of the Biometric Information Privacy Act to bar a private entity from requiring a person or customer to provide a biometric identifier or biometric information as a condition of goods or services, except as needed for employer background checks or employee security protocols. It would not have applied to companies providing medical services, law enforcement agencies or governmental entities. It was not passed before the 100th General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 8, 2019).

BIOMETRIC DATA-COMMERCIAL USE

Illinois's HB 4330 (100th General Assembly) would have amended Section 15 of the Biometric Information Privacy Act to bar a private entity from requiring a person or customer to provide a biometric identifier or biometric information as a condition of goods or services, except as needed for employer background checks or employee security protocols. It would not have applied to companies providing medical services, law enforcement agencies or governmental entities. It was not passed before the 100th General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 8, 2019).

Mental health service providers; use of artificial intelligence system, civil penalty.

Virginia's HB 668 (2026 Regular Session) would have let mental health service providers use AI for administrative and supplementary support but barred using AI to provide therapy or counseling without a provider. As introduced, violations carried a civil penalty up to $10,000. It failed: left in House Communications, Technology and Innovation Committee on February 18, 2026.

Insurance, Health, Accident - As introduced, creates the "Regulate Artificial Intelligence (AI) In Health Care Act." - Amends TCA Title 8, Chapter 27; Title 56 and Title 71.

Tennessee's SB 2010 (114th General Assembly), the "Regulate Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Health Care Act," would have barred, on or after July 1, 2026, a health insurance issuer that uses AI, an algorithm or other software tool for utilization review or management based in whole or in part on medical necessity from denying, delaying or modifying care on medical necessity grounds unless a licensed healthcare professional or provider reviews the prior authorization request. Companion: HB 1866. Not passed before the session ended in April 2026; last action: Assigned to General Subcommittee of Senate Commerce and Labor Committee (April 7, 2026).

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8, Chapter 27; Title 56 and Title 71, relative to health insurance.

Tennessee's HB 1382 (114th General Assembly) would have required a health insurance issuer that uses AI, an algorithm or other software tool for utilization review or management based on medical necessity to ensure the tool bases decisions on the enrollee's clinical history and circumstances, does not rely solely on a group dataset, does not supplant provider decision-making, and does not discriminate or cause harm. Companion: SB 1261. Not passed before the session ended in April 2026; last action: Assigned to s/c Insurance Subcommittee (February 12, 2025).

Insurance; use of artificial intelligence in making certain decisions regarding coverage; prohibit

Georgia's HB 887 (2023-2024 session) would have barred coverage determinations, healthcare actions and public-assistance decisions based solely on the results of AI or automated decision tools, and required that such decisions be meaningfully reviewed by an individual with authority to override the tool. It would also have required the Georgia Composite Medical Board to adopt rules, including for disciplining physicians who do not comply. The bill reached House Second Readers on January 11, 2024 and died when the 2023-2024 session ended.

Regulate the use of artificial intelligence by health insurers

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.

Modifies provisions relating to medical malpractice for the use of artificial intelligence by health care providers

Missouri's SB 1598 would provide that a medical malpractice claim includes a health care provider's negligent use, selection or implementation of artificial intelligence, or undue, detrimental or erroneous reliance on it, in diagnosing, treating and caring for a patient when that negligence or reliance directly causes or contributes to the injury. Such an action would have to be brought within two years of when the negligence or reliance was or should have been discovered. Referred to the Senate General Laws Committee February 5, 2026; the bill died when the 2026 regular session ended in May 2026 without being truly agreed to and finally passed.

Creates provisions relating to artificial intelligence in mental health

Missouri's HB 2318, as introduced, would bar any person or entity that develops or deploys artificial intelligence in the state from advertising or representing to the public that the AI is, or can act as, a mental health professional or provide therapy services. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, enforced by the attorney general with civil penalties of $10,000 for a first violation and $20,000 for later ones. A House committee substitute (filed under HB 2368) was reported do pass March 12, 2026, but the bill died when the 2026 regular session ended in May 2026 without being truly agreed to and finally passed.

An Act regulating the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in providing mental health services

Massachusetts' H 1974 (193rd General Court, 2023-2024) would have required a licensed mental health professional who wants to provide mental health services through AI to first seek approval from the relevant licensing board, keep the AI system continuously monitored, tell patients in advance, get their informed consent and offer them treatment from a licensed professional. A violation would bring licensing-board discipline. The bill accompanied a study order on June 6, 2024 and died when the session ended.

Health care professions: deceptive terms or letters: artificial intelligence.

California's AB 489 (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 4999.8-4999.9) makes the laws barring use of terms, letters or phrases that imply a health care license one does not hold enforceable against anyone who develops or deploys AI or generative AI that uses them in its advertising or functionality. AI technology may not use terms implying that its care, advice, reports or assessments come from a licensed natural person. Each use is a separate violation, under the jurisdiction of the relevant licensing board. Signed October 11, 2025 (Chapter 615); effective January 1, 2026.

Enact the Enhanced Cybersecurity for SNAP Act

Ohio's SB 315 (the Enhanced Cybersecurity for SNAP Act and the Ohio Medicaid Program Integrity and Fraud Prevention Act) adds a human-in-the-loop rule for automated Medicaid decisions. When the Department of Medicaid uses automated review tools, including AI, automated fraud detection or algorithmic analysis, in the program-integrity and eligibility work listed in new R.C. 5162.90 and 5164.11, no action may be taken automatically from the tool's determination; the responsible employee must review and confirm the finding. It took effect Oct. 6, 2026.

Ban on government social scoring with AI.

Wyoming's HB 91 (as introduced) would create W.S. 9-30-101 through 9-30-103 barring a governmental entity from using an AI system to evaluate or classify people on social behavior or personal characteristics to assign a social score that could lead to unrelated-context or disproportionate treatment or infringe rights, and from using AI to identify a person by biometric data or bulk image gathering in ways that infringe rights. A committee amendment would add law-enforcement exceptions. It would take effect July 1, 2026. The House Judiciary Committee recommended it amend and do pass 7-1, but the House did not consider it in Committee of the Whole; it died.

Memorializes the United States Congress to take action relative to the use of artificial intelligence in health care

Louisiana's HR 313 is a House resolution, adopted 94-0 on June 10, 2025, that memorializes the United States Congress to act immediately to keep physicians in full control of medical decisions with AI as a support tool rather than a replacement, set nationwide standards for AI in health care (patient safety, data privacy, the doctor-patient relationship), monitor AI's effects on care and outcomes, promote transparency in AI algorithms, and develop ethical guidelines. Copies go to Congress's presiding officers and Louisiana's congressional delegation. As a resolution of one chamber, it does not change the law.

AN ACT relating to mental health chatbots.

Kentucky's HB 641 (the Artificial Intelligence in Mental Health Act, as introduced) would add sections to KRS Chapter 367 regulating suppliers of mental health chatbots, AI systems that use generative AI to hold therapy-like conversations. Suppliers could not sell or share users' health information or input, would have to label and disclose any advertising, and would have to disclose every 30 minutes that the chatbot is AI. The Attorney General could fine up to $2,500 per violation. Introduced February 13, 2026 and referred to the House Small Business & Information Technology Committee; it died in committee when the session ended.

Requires experts in professional fields to be consulted when developing and maintaining artificial intelligence technology for use in such fields.

New York's A 9219 would add General Business Law §§ 1710 to 1715. A developer of AI intended for a professional domain regulated under Title Eight of the Education Law would have to show that a licensed professional domain expert with three or more years of experience was directly and substantially involved in design, data and training, validation and ongoing risk assessment, and submit documentation to the Attorney General. Penalties up to $50,000 per violation. Would take effect one year after it becomes law. Referred to Science and Technology November 3, 2025 (and January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.

Relating to disclosure of the use of artificial intelligence in the denial of insurance claims.

Texas HB 4635 (Rep. Garcia Hernandez) would have required an insurer or health maintenance organization that denies a claim based on a determination made by artificial intelligence to give the claimant, with the denial notice, a written disclosure that AI made the determination, its basis, and instructions on appealing. It would apply to claims submitted on or after September 1, 2025. Left pending in House Insurance Committee May 7, 2025; it died when the session ended.

Provides that health insurance plans would provide coverage the use of artificial intelligence technology for analysis of breast tissue diagnostic imaging.

Rhode Island H 8073 (2024), as introduced on March 15, 2024, would require individual and group health insurance contracts and plans delivered, issued or renewed in Rhode Island on or after January 1, 2025 to cover the use of AI technology for analysis of breast tissue diagnostic imaging, provided a physician qualified to read such imaging independently reviews and approves the imaging and the AI review. The same text is added in four insurance chapters. The text says it takes effect upon passage.

Health care services: artificial intelligence.

California requires hospitals and other health facilities, clinics, physician offices and group practices that use generative AI to write or speak patient communications about clinical information to include a disclaimer that the message was AI-generated and clear instructions for reaching a human health care provider or other appropriate person. The disclaimer goes at the top of letters and emails, stays on screen in chats and video, and is spoken at the start and end of audio. Messages a licensed provider reads and reviews are exempt, as are administrative messages like scheduling and billing. Effective January 1, 2025.

Relating to regulation of the use of artificial intelligence systems in this state; providing civil penalties.

Texas's HB 149, the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, bars developing or deploying AI intended to incite self-harm, harm to others or crime, with intent to unlawfully discriminate against a protected class (disparate impact alone is not enough), or solely to infringe U.S. constitutional rights, and making or distributing AI solely to produce or spread child pornography or unlawful sexual deep fakes. Government entities may not use AI for harmful social scoring or rights-infringing biometric ID. Agencies must tell consumers they are dealing with AI; health care providers must tell patients. AG enforcement; 60-day cure. Signed June 22, 2025; effective January 1, 2026.

Relating to electronic health record requirements; authorizing a civil penalty.

Texas's SB 1188 is an electronic health record (EHR) law. Health care practitioners may use AI for diagnostic purposes, including recommendations on a diagnosis or course of treatment based on a patient's medical record, if acting within their license, the use is not otherwise restricted by law, and they review all AI-created records consistent with Texas Medical Board standards; they must disclose that use to patients. EHRs must be kept physically in the U.S. or a U.S. territory (for storage from January 1, 2026), and EHR algorithms that aid treatment decisions must include the recorded biological sex. AG civil penalties apply. Signed June 20, 2025; effective September 1, 2025.

Relating to artificial intelligence mental health services.

Texas HB 1265 (2025), as introduced, would have barred anyone from providing AI mental health services in Texas unless the AI application is approved by the Health and Human Services Commission and a licensed mental health professional is available at all times. Clients would have to be told the service is AI-based and give informed consent. Violators would face disciplinary action under the applicable licensing statute. It died when the regular session adjourned June 2, 2025.

Conversational Artificial Intelligence Service Operator Requirements

Colorado's HB 26-1263 regulates operators of conversational AI services: public AI systems that mainly simulate human conversation (customer-service, business and other listed uses excluded). From January 1, 2027, operators must tell users the service is AI (daily, every three hours or persistently, and when asked), run a suicide and self-harm protocol with crisis referrals, and not claim outputs come from or are endorsed by licensed health, legal or mental health professionals. For known minors they must also guard against sexual content and simulated romance, avoid unpredictable engagement rewards and offer privacy tools. Signed May 29, 2026 (Chapter 208); act effective August 12, 2026.

Relating To The Use Of Artificial Intelligence In Health Care.

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.

Technology; deployers; AI chatbots; minors; age verification systems; emergency situations; effective date.

Oklahoma's HB 4083 (2026), as introduced, would have required deployers of generative AI chatbots to keep human-like features and social AI companions away from minors (under 18) using reasonable age verification, with an exception for qualifying therapeutic chatbots. Per its title, it would also have required emergency-situation detection and Attorney General and private enforcement. It was referred to Rules February 3, 2026 and died when the session ended May 14, 2026.

Rural health care; Alabama Health Command established to designate an AI-assisted health platform in rural communities

Alabama's HB 280 would create the Alabama Health Command, an independent agency under a director appointed by the Governor, to designate an Alabama-headquartered business to develop a uniform virtual AI-assisted health platform for rural communities. The platform would give consumers health management services such as education, scheduling and navigation to rural providers, without diagnosis or treatment. Rural providers that contract to use it would be exempt from competitive bid laws. Referred to House Ways and Means General Fund on January 20, 2026; the bill died when the 2026 regular session ended without final passage.

Revises provisions relating to health insurance. (BDR 57-238)

Nevada's AB 295 (2025) would have set prior authorization deadlines for health carriers (5 days non-urgent, 48 hours urgent, replacing 20 days) and required carriers using AI or automated decision tools for prior authorization to notify insureds in writing, and barred using AI to make adverse determinations or reduce or modify approved care unless a physician (or dentist) independently reviews the request. Carriers would report annually. Under Joint Standing Rule 14.3.1 no further action was allowed after April 12, 2025, so it died.

Artificial intelligence; nursing tasks; pilot

Arizona's HB 4080 (2026) would have established an artificial intelligence nursing innovation pilot program in the Department of Health Services to develop and test AI that performs nursing-adjacent tasks or workflows in a clinical setting. The department would select not more than five technology vendors recommended by an advisory committee. The bill was assigned to House Rules, held there, and died when the 2026 session ended June 13, 2026.

Various mental health and insurance matters.

Indiana's HB 1201 (2026) would have barred using an AI system to impersonate or substitute for a licensed mental health professional in interactions that must be performed by one (discipline under IC 25-1-9; a board could impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per violation). It also covered insurance: downcoding limits, mental health reimbursement parity with medical providers relative to Medicare, a 180-day audit and recoupment window, and out-of-network balance-billing limits. Referred to the Insurance Committee January 5, 2026; it was not passed before the 2026 session ended.

Commerce policy bill (Laws 2026, chapter 124), including article 3, section 6 barring utilization review organizations from using artificial intelligence exclusively to make adverse determinations

Minnesota's 2026 commerce omnibus (Laws 2026, chapter 124) adds an AI rule to the state's utilization review law. Article 3, section 6 amends Minn. Stat. 62M.09, subd. 3 to prohibit a utilization review organization from exclusively using artificial intelligence to make an adverse determination on coverage of benefits; a clinician must review the denial. AI may still be used in other parts of the review process. Article 1, section 61 also routes civil penalties under the 2026 nudification ban to the victims of crime account. The rest of the act is not AI-related.

Automated Decision-Making Technology

Colorado's SB 26-189 repeals and reenacts the 2024 AI Act as rules for automated decision-making technology (ADMT) that materially influences consequential decisions such as hiring, lending, housing and health care. Developers must document covered ADMT for deployers; deployers must give notice before use, explain adverse outcomes within 30 days and, on request, give correction steps and, where commercially reasonable, human review. Signed May 14, 2026 (Chapter 131); applies from January 1, 2027. A stipulated April 27, 2026 order in X. AI LLC v. Weiser bars AG enforcement of 2026 laws replacing SB 24-205 for violations through 14 days after a ruling on xAI's planned injunction motion.

Health insurance; review agents; artificial intelligence system; adverse determinations; effective date.

Oklahoma's HB 3675 (2026), as introduced, would have required a qualified human professional to review any adverse determination made by an algorithm, AI system or automated decision system in utilization review before it is finalized, let the Insurance Commissioner audit use of such systems, and required adverse-determination notices to give reasons and appeal rights. It was referred to the Rules Committee February 11, 2026 and died when the session ended May 14, 2026.

An Act to Prohibit the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Denial of Health Insurance Claims

Not law. Maine's LD 1301 would have set conditions, beginning January 1, 2026, on health insurance carriers and their contractors that use artificial intelligence in medical or utilization review decisions to approve, deny, delay or modify coverage. Despite its title, it did not ban AI. AI determinations would have had to rest on the enrollee's medical history and clinical circumstances and not supplant provider decision-making, and could not discriminate. Any denial, delay or modification based on medical necessity would have needed a clinical peer. The committee voted Ought Not To Pass on January 14, 2026; final disposition January 27, 2026.

An Act Concerning Broadband Internet, Gaming, Social Media, Online Services and Consumer Contracts

Public Act 25-113 overhauls the Connecticut Data Privacy Act's rules on automated decision-making. From July 1, 2026, consumers can opt out of profiling used for any automated decision with legal or similarly significant effects (housing, insurance, health care, employment, financial services and more), question the result and learn why the decision was made, and for housing decisions correct inaccurate data. Controllers that profile for such decisions must complete impact assessments (for processing created on or after Aug. 1, 2026), and privacy notices must state whether personal data is collected, used or sold to train large language models.

Health care services: artificial intelligence.

California's AB 1979 sets rules for AI in clinical care. Health facilities such as hospitals, clinics, physician offices and group practices must take reasonable steps so licensed providers keep independent professional judgment whenever care is informed by a clinical decision support system, and may not use AI to independently perform licensed clinical work, or to direct unlicensed staff doing it. Businesses offering health care chatbots that consumers use to manage their health information or to diagnose, treat or manage a condition are treated as health care providers under the state's medical privacy law (CMIA). Signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 854); effective January 1, 2027.

Making improvements to transparency and accountability in the prior authorization determination process.

Chapter 157, Laws of 2026 regulates AI in health insurance prior authorization (RCW 48.43.830 for carriers and RCW 41.05.845 for public employee plans). AI may not be the sole means of denying, delaying or modifying care, and algorithms may approve requests but may not deny care for medical necessity without human review. A carrier using AI must base decisions on the enrollee's clinical history and individual clinical circumstances, not solely on group data; avoid discrimination; open its AI policies to audit by the Insurance Commissioner; and periodically review AI performance. Carriers must report the share of denials aided by AI (RCW 48.43.0161).

Health Insurance; prohibiting issue of outcomes with AI; requiring decisions to be made by provider; requiring disclosures. Emergency.

Oklahoma's SB 2038 (2026), as introduced, would have barred a health insurance issuer from issuing an adverse consumer outcome (denial, reduction or termination of coverage or benefits) that results from an AI system, required a licensed professional to review and issue such final decisions, and required a disclosure notice. It was referred to a Senate committee February 3, 2026 and died when the session ended May 14, 2026.

Relating to the use of nursing titles.

Oregon's HB 2748 (Chapter 378, Oregon Laws 2025) adds a rule to the Nurse Practice Act (ORS 678.010 to 678.410): a nonhuman entity, including an agent powered by artificial intelligence, may not use the titles Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN), certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA), clinical nurse specialist (CNS), licensed practical nurse (LPN), registered nurse (RN), nurse practitioner (NP), certified medication aide (CMA) or certified nursing assistant (CNA). It was signed June 24, 2025 and took effect January 1, 2026.

An act relating to governmental structures protecting the public health, safety, and welfare

Vermont's S.124 (Act 166 of 2020) is a public safety act whose Sec. 14 imposes a moratorium on facial recognition technology: until the General Assembly authorizes it by law, a law enforcement officer may not use facial recognition technology or information obtained through it, except as permitted for drones under 20 V.S.A. 4622. Facial recognition covers automated or semi-automated identification of a person from facial characteristics and analysis of a face to infer sentiment, state of mind or dangerousness. The act took effect October 1, 2020; the Governor signed it October 7, 2020. Act 17 of 2021 later allowed use in child sexual exploitation investigations.

Health care coverage: utilization review.

SB 1120 amended Health and Safety Code 1367.01 and Insurance Code 10123.135. Health plans and disability insurers that use an AI, algorithm or other software tool for utilization review must ensure it bases decisions on the enrollee's medical history and clinical circumstances, is applied fairly and equitably, does not supplant provider decisionmaking, and is open to inspection and review. Denials, delays or modifications for medical necessity must be made by a licensed physician or qualified health professional, not by the tool alone.

NETWORK ADEQUACY-STANDARDS

The Health Care Protection Act is a broad health insurance reform covering network adequacy, prior authorization, step therapy and short-term plans. Its automated decision provision amends Section 85 of the Managed Care Reform and Patient Rights Act (215 ILCS 134/85) on utilization review programs. Only a clinical peer may make adverse medical necessity determinations. A health care professional, an accredited algorithmic automated process, or both together may certify (approve) medical necessity in line with accreditation standards, and an automated process may be used to refer a case to a clinical peer for a possible denial. Effective January 1, 2025.

Health curriculum framework: human trafficking and online safety.

AB 1766 added Education Code Section 33546.5. When the health curriculum framework is next revised on or after January 1, 2027, the Instructional Quality Commission must consider including content on human trafficking and online safety, including how to stay safe from sexually exploitative materials and deepfakes online and foundational digital citizenship skills. The Department of Education must also maintain related information and recommended educator training on its website.

Hospitals, nursing homes, and certified nursing facilities; patient access to intelligent personal assistant.

Virginia HB 2154 (2021 Special Session I) directs the Board of Health to require hospitals, nursing homes and certified nursing facilities to have policies allowing patients to use their own intelligent personal assistant during an inpatient stay. An intelligent personal assistant is a combination of an electronic device and a specialized software application that helps users with basic tasks using natural language processing and artificial intelligence, including digital and virtual assistants. Effective July 1, 2021.

Health; restrictions on sale and dispensing of contact lenses with respect to physicians; revise provisions

HB 203 (Act 233 of 2023) regulates automated and AI tools for remote eye assessments. It defines an 'assessment mechanism' as automated or virtual equipment, applications or technology used in person or via telemedicine to conduct an eye assessment, including artificial intelligence devices. Such mechanisms must follow the Georgia Telehealth Act, collect the patient's history, meet ADA and HIPAA requirements and use a recognized CPT procedure. Prescribers using them must meet in-person standards of care, may not use the assessment data as the sole basis for a prescription, may serve only patients aged 21 to 50, and cannot use them for an initial prescription or its first renewal.

Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act.

California's SB 976 (Chapter 321 of 2024), the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, adds Health and Safety Code section 27000 and following. An "addictive feed" is one in which user-generated media is recommended, selected or prioritized for a user based on information provided by or associated with the user or their device. An operator may not provide an addictive feed to a user it knows is a minor without verifiable parental consent, and from January 1, 2027 it must reasonably determine that a user is not a minor, including under Attorney General rules, before providing one. It also limits notifications to minors between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m. without parental consent.

Social Media Amendments

Utah's HB 464 (Laws of Utah 2024, chapter 224) adds Utah Code 78B-3-1101 to -1103 on harm to minors from an "algorithmically curated social media service," one that drives engagement mainly through a curation algorithm (a process that personalizes which content a user sees and how, to encourage engagement) and engagement-driven design. A Utah minor account holder or parent may sue the company for a diagnosed adverse mental health outcome caused by the minor's excessive use, with a rebuttable presumption that the curation algorithm and design caused it; a company that complies with specified safeguards gets the opposite presumption. These sections took effect October 1, 2024.

An Act Concerning Motor Vehicle Registration Notice, the International Registration Plan, Carriers, School Buses, the Medical Advisory Board, Reserved Parking Spaces, Autonomous Vehicles and Other Motor Vehicle Statutes

Sections 17 and 18 of Connecticut's Public Act 19-119 revise the state's fully autonomous vehicle testing pilot program. The Office of Policy and Management runs the program in up to four municipalities, each of which signs an agreement with testers setting routes, vehicles and hours. Testing is allowed only if a trained, licensed operator is physically inside the vehicle (no longer necessarily in the driver's seat), monitoring it and able to take immediate manual control, and each vehicle is registered with the DMV. Testing on limited-access highways is barred, OPM may halt unsafe testing, and testers must share performance information. Both sections were effective on passage.

Adopt the Ensuring Transparency in Prior Authorization Act and provide for insurance and medicaid coverage of biomarker testing

Nebraska's LB 77 (2025) adopts the Ensuring Transparency in Prior Authorization Act. Its AI section says an artificial intelligence-based algorithm may not be the sole basis for a utilization review agent's decision to deny, delay or modify health care services based on medical necessity. Agents must disclose to the Department of Insurance, to every network provider, to every enrollee and on their public website whether AI-based algorithms are or will be used in utilization review. The department may audit an agent's automated utilization management system at any time, including through a third party. The section is operative January 1, 2026.

Enacts the New York privacy act to require companies to disclose their methods of de-identifying personal information, to place special safeguards around data sharing and to allow consumers to obtain the names of all entities with whom their information is shared.

New York's A 974-A, the "New York data protection act," would add General Business Law Article 42-A letting consumers opt out of profiling (automated processing of personal data to evaluate or predict personal traits) in furtherance of decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects, and requiring a data protection assessment for profiling with a reasonably foreseeable risk of unfair or deceptive treatment of, or unlawful disparate impact on, consumers. It would also add targeted-advertising and data-sale opt-outs and other rights, with Attorney General civil penalties of up to $20,000 per violation. Amended May 29, 2026 and recommitted to Codes; not passed by either chamber.

An Act Prohibiting Health Insurers From Using Software Tools To Automatically Downcode Health Insurance Claims.

Connecticut's Proposed SB 817 (2025), introduced by Sen. Looney, would have amended title 38a of the general statutes to prohibit any health insurer from using a software tool, including artificial intelligence or an algorithm, to automatically downcode or deny a health insurance claim submitted by a health care provider without detailed review by a clinical peer. The filed text is a brief proposed bill with a statement of purpose. Referred to the Joint Committee on Insurance and Real Estate January 21, 2025; it died when the 2025 session ended.

An act relating to consumer data privacy and online surveillance

Vermont's S.71 (Act 145) adds the Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act. It covers businesses that in the prior year processed personal data of at least 35,000 Vermonters or sensitive data of at least 3,000, or offered for sale personal data of at least 3,000. Consumers may access, correct, delete and port their data and opt out of targeted ads, sales and profiling for automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. Controllers must minimize data, get consent for sensitive data, say whether they use data to train large language models, and assess risky processing and profiling. Attorney General enforcement only. Signed June 16, 2026; effective January 1, 2028.

Enacting the use of artificial intelligence in medical decisions transparency act and requiring that all medical necessity determinations be made by a competent licensed physician or healthcare professional.

Kansas's SB 467 (2026) would have enacted the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Decisions Transparency Act. Health insurers and utilization review organizations using AI, algorithms or software tools for utilization review would have had to ensure the tool bases decisions on the enrollee's clinical information and does not supplant provider decision-making, and the tool could not deny, delay or modify care on medical necessity; only a licensed physician or competent licensed professional could. Referred to committee February 4, 2026; Died in Committee April 10, 2026.

Psychotherapy Artificial Intelligence Restrictions

Colorado's HB 26-1195 limits how licensed mental health professionals and others lawfully providing psychotherapy use AI. They may use it for administrative and supplementary support (e.g. scheduling, billing) if they stay responsible for reviewing its outputs, but may not let AI engage in therapeutic communication with clients without their synchronous, real-time participation or generate therapeutic recommendations or treatment plans without their approval. AI recording or transcription of sessions needs advance written notice and consent. No one may present AI as psychotherapy, therapist-equivalent or therapist-confidential. Signed June 3, 2026 (Chapter 358); effective August 12, 2026.

Imposes liability for damages caused by a chatbot impersonating certain licensed professionals

New York's S 7263-A would add General Business Law § 390-f. A chatbot operator could not knowingly let its chatbot impersonate a licensed professional (a profession licensed under listed Education Law articles, or an attorney) in a way that would be a crime or unauthorized practice if done by a person, and could not disclaim liability with a not-human notice. Operators would also have to give clear notice that users are talking to an AI chatbot. The Attorney General could seek up to $15,000 per day. Reported by the Internet and Technology Committee and advanced to third reading, amended May 26, 2026 and committed to Rules June 5, 2026; no chamber has passed it.

Establishes "Authentic Relationships Act"; prohibits artificial intelligence relationship simulation.

New Jersey's A6246 (Authentic Relationships Act) would have barred providers from offering in the state any AI relationship simulation, meaning software or a device designed or marketed to imitate or encourage an intimate, romantic or sexual relationship between a person and AI. Supervised medical uses that do not simulate romance were exempt. The Attorney General could seek up to $25,000 per violation, harmed individuals could sue, and deceiving a person into thinking they were talking to a human would have violated the consumer fraud act. It died in committee when the 2024-2025 session ended.

Health Insurance - Artificial Intelligence, Adverse Decisions, and Grievances - Reporting Requirements

Maryland's HB 697 (2025) would have required each health insurance carrier to report quarterly to the Insurance Commissioner on how it creates, deploys and uses artificial intelligence or automated decision-making systems (new Insurance section 15-147), and expanded the demographic and call-center data carriers report on grievances and adverse decisions (section 15-10A-06). The sponsor withdrew it on February 17, 2025, after a canceled February 13 hearing.

Relating To Insurance.

Hawaii's SB 2953 (2026) would have set rules for insurers' use of AI: a written AI governance program, testing and monitoring, clinician review of AI-supported adverse health determinations, and limits on adverse residential property underwriting actions based solely on aerial images or AI outputs. The Insurance Commissioner would have enforced it. It was referred to CPN/LBT and WAM on January 30, 2026 and was not enacted.

AI USE IN HEALTH INSURANCE ACT

Illinois's HB 35 (engrossed, with House Floor Amendment 1) would create the Artificial Intelligence Systems Use in Health Insurance Act. A health insurance issuer could not issue an adverse consumer outcome denying, reducing or terminating coverage or benefits that results solely from an AI system or predictive model, and denials, reductions or terminations resulting from AI would need meaningful review by a person able to override the AI. The Department of Insurance could review issuers' AI use. Passed the House 79-35 on April 9, 2025; re-referred to Senate Assignments June 2, 2025.

AI Chatbots - Licensing/Safety/Privacy

North Carolina's S 624 (as filed) would require a Department of Justice license to operate or distribute a chatbot that deals substantially with health information, with a $50,000 civil penalty for violating G.S. 114B-5. It would also create a Chatbot Safety and Privacy Act: covered platforms would owe users a duty of loyalty and would have to disclose that a chatbot is not human, get consent each session and de-identify user data. Filed March 25, 2025 and referred to the Senate Rules and Operations Committee; it has not passed either house.

Warehouse employers; required disclosures and recordkeeping, civil penalties.

Virginia's HB 1451 (Labor and Commerce Committee substitute) would require employers of 500 or more employees at warehouse distribution centers to give nonexempt employees written descriptions of each quota, related incentives and potential adverse action, and to state if an automated or algorithmic management system monitors performance against a quota. Employers would keep work-speed records and could not retaliate; adverse action within 90 days would be presumed retaliatory. Continued to 2027 in House Labor and Commerce on February 10, 2026; not passed.

Providing for consumer protection and for artificial intelligence and chatbots; imposing duties on the Bureau of Consumer Protection in the Office of Attorney General; and imposing penalties.

Pennsylvania's HB 2175 (Printer's No. 2831) would add Chapter 71 to Title 12 on AI chatbots that use generative AI to converse with consumers and are represented as helping manage a situation or treat a condition, including mental health. Suppliers could not sell or share health information or consumer input except as allowed, could not advertise in chatbot conversations, and would have to adopt, file and follow a written disclosure policy. Fines up to $2,500 per violation. Introduced January 30, 2026; re-referred to Consumer Protection, Technology & Utilities March 19, 2026; not passed.

Requires collection of data by health insurers regarding health insurance claims and decisions made using automated utilization management systems.

New Jersey's S1029 would require health insurers (payers) to keep and report data on claims, including denials, appeals and prior-authorization outcomes, and would make them disclose whether they use an automated utilization management system (a system that may use AI to recommend or decide coverage) and how many claims it reviewed. A payer determined to have denied at least 20 percent of a year's claims without proper justification would have to repay covered persons for the denied services. Referred to the Senate Commerce Committee January 13, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.

Algorithmic Addiction Fund - Establishment

Maryland's HB 1119 (2024) would have created the Algorithmic Addiction Fund, a special nonlapsing fund in the Maryland Department of Health holding revenue the State receives from judgments or settlements with technology or social media companies, to pay for algorithmic addiction research, prevention, intervention and treatment services. A House Appropriations hearing was set for February 28, 2024; it went no further and died when the session ended. The bill does not define "algorithmic addiction" and does not regulate algorithms.

Relating To Algorithmic Discrimination.

Hawaii's HB 1607 (2024) would have added an Algorithmic Discrimination chapter. Covered entities (those holding data on more than 25,000 residents, over $15,000,000 in receipts, data brokers, or service providers) could not use algorithmic processes using machine learning, AI or similar techniques to decide eligibility for credit, insurance, education, employment, housing or public accommodations in a discriminatory way, and would owe notices, annual audits and reports. Penalties up to $10,000 per violation, plus private suits. It was referred to HET and JHA January 24, 2024. It died.

TRANSPARENCY IN DOWNCODING ACT

Illinois's HB 4735 (104th General Assembly) would create the Transparency in Downcoding Act for certain health insurance policies. A health insurance issuer could not use an automated process, system or tool to downcode a claim, or downcode based solely on reported diagnosis codes, and downcoding decisions would have to be made by a licensed physician. Re-referred to the House Rules Committee March 27, 2026.

Registered Nurse Use of AI

Illinois's HB 4804 (104th General Assembly) would amend the Nurse Practice Act to set rules for registered nurses' use of AI, including a bar on substituting AI for nursing services, patient notice and confidentiality protections, and discipline for violations. Health care entities deploying AI in direct patient care would have to keep validation and bias monitoring records. Re-referred to Rules Committee on March 27, 2026.

No AI in Health Care Pricing

Illinois's SB 3027 (104th General Assembly) would amend the Fair Patient Billing Act to prohibit all hospitals from using artificial intelligence to set or influence health care pricing or billing, using the Illinois Human Rights Act definition of AI. Re-referred to Senate Assignments on May 22, 2026.

AI-Prescribing Medication

Illinois's SB 2993 (104th General Assembly) would amend the Medical Practice Act of 1987 to bar a licensee from allowing AI to prescribe medication unless the licensee keeps full control and responsibility for the prescription. It would set penalties and give the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation investigatory and rulemaking authority. Re-referred to Senate Assignments on May 22, 2026.

AI USE IN HEALTH INSURANCE ACT

Illinois's SB 1425 (104th General Assembly) would create the Artificial Intelligence Systems Use in Health Insurance Act. It would place an insurer's use of AI systems to make or support adverse determinations under Department of Insurance oversight, bar adverse outcomes (denial, reduction or termination of plans or benefits) that result solely from an AI system or predictive model, and require meaningful review by an individual with authority to override. Re-referred to Assignments April 11, 2025.

HEALTH CARE GENERATIVE AI USE

Illinois's SB 2259 (104th General Assembly) would add Section 67 to the Medical Practice Act of 1987. A health facility, clinic, physician's office or group practice office that uses generative AI to produce written or verbal patient communications about clinical information would have to ensure the communications meet specified criteria; communications read and reviewed by a human licensed or certified provider would be exempt. Re-referred to Assignments April 11, 2025.

Health care services: artificial intelligence.

Vetoed. AB 2575 would have barred California employers from retaliating against workers providing direct patient care based solely on their override of, or reliance on, a clinical decision support system (AI that aids decisions on timing of care, diagnosis or treatment), with enforcement by the Labor Commissioner. In lawsuits over harm from such a system, its developer or deployer could not have argued that a clinician's failure to override it cut off liability. Governor Newsom vetoed it on September 30, 2026, saying its anti-retaliation test set a higher bar than other protections and would make the Labor Commissioner judge the medical standard of care.

Relating To Artificial Intelligence.

Hawaii's HB 2176 (2024), as amended to HD 2, would have created an artificial intelligence working group in the Office of Enterprise Technology Services to develop acceptable use policies and guidelines for AI in the State. It would report by December 31, 2024 and December 1, 2025 and cease to exist June 30, 2026. It passed House committees HET and CPC, was referred to FIN February 16, 2024 and died.

Relating To Algorithmic Discrimination.

Hawaii's SB 2524 (2024) would have added an Algorithmic Discrimination chapter. Covered entities (those holding data on more than 25,000 residents, over $15,000,000 in receipts, data brokers, or service providers) could not use algorithmic processes using machine learning, AI or similar techniques to decide eligibility for credit, insurance, education, employment, housing or public accommodations in a discriminatory way, and would owe notices, annual audits and reports. Penalties up to $10,000 per violation, plus private suits. It was referred to committees January 24, 2024. It died.

AN ACT RELATING TO INSURANCE -- THE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USE BY HEALTH INSURERS TO MANAGE COVERAGE AND CLAIMS ACT

Rhode Island's proposed Transparency and Accountability in AI Use by Health Insurers to Manage Coverage and Claims Act. Health insurers, and contractors acting for them, would have to disclose to the health insurance commissioner and DBR how they use AI in claims and coverage decisions (models, role, training data, performance metrics, governance) and keep records of AI-driven decisions for five years. Any clinical denial in which AI was a substantial factor would need review and approval by a provider with the same license as the ordering provider, or it would be invalid. Regulators would report yearly. The Senate passed a substitute on June 9, 2026.

Relating To Artificial Intelligence.

Hawaii's SB 3001 (Artificial Intelligence Disclosure and Safety Act) regulates AI companions, AI built to simulate a sustained human-like relationship. Operators must disclose it is AI if a reasonable person would think it human, adopt a suicide/self-harm crisis-referral protocol and not program it to claim to give professional mental or behavioral health care. For known or reasonably certain minors they must flag AI use, avoid unpredictable engagement rewards, guard against sexual content and offer screen-time tools. Annual Department of Health reports begin January 1, 2028. Violations are unfair or deceptive acts (HRS § 480-2); no private right of action. Act 248; effective July 14, 2026.

A bill for an act relating to utilization review organizations, prior authorizations and exemptions, medical billing, and independent review organizations.

The bill addresses utilization review organizations, prior authorizations, and medical billing practices in Iowa.

Prescribes requirements and safeguards for the use of an artificial intelligence, algorithm, or other software tool for the purpose of utilization review for health and accident insurance.

New York's A 8556 would add Public Health Law § 4905-a and Insurance Law § 4905-a. A utilization review agent or disability insurer using AI, an algorithm or another software tool for utilization review based on medical necessity would have to base determinations on the enrollee's clinical history, not solely a group dataset, and the tool could not "deny, delay, or modify health care services" on medical necessity; only a licensed health care professional could. Would take effect on the ninetieth day after it becomes law. Referred to the Insurance Committee May 20, 2025 (and January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.

Artificial Intelligence Consumer Protection Amendments

Utah's SB 226 replaces the 2024 generative AI disclosure rules with Utah Code Title 13, Chapter 75. A supplier using generative AI with an individual in a consumer transaction must disclose it is AI, not a human, if the individual clearly asks. Regulated professionals must prominently disclose generative AI at the start of high-risk interactions (collecting health, financial or biometric data, or personalized financial, legal, medical or mental health advice). AI that discloses itself at the outset and throughout gets a safe harbor. Fines up to $2,500 per violation. Signed March 27, 2025; effective May 7, 2025.

Concerning Artificial Intelligence, Algorithms, And Other Automated Technologies; And To Regulate Certain Practices Of Healthcare Insurers.

Arkansas HB 1297 (2025), as engrossed, would have added a subchapter (Ark. Code §§ 23-63-2101 to 2113) regulating healthcare insurers' use of AI and automated decision-making in utilization review. Insurers would have had to disclose algorithm details from January 1, 2026, give explanations for AI-supported denials, and have a clinician licensed in Arkansas review adverse prior authorization determinations. The Insurance Commissioner could fine up to $25,000 per determination. The author withdrew it on April 1, 2025.

An Act Prohibiting Health Carriers From Using Artificial Intelligence In The Evaluation And Determination Of Patient Care.

Connecticut's SB 447 (2025) was a short proposed bill with no operative text, stating its intent to amend title 38a of the general statutes to prohibit health carriers from using artificial intelligence in the evaluation and determination of patient care, to safeguard patient access to testing, medications and procedures. It was referred to the Insurance and Real Estate Committee on January 10, 2025 and died when the 2025 session ended.

Artificial intelligence, Ala. Comm. on, estab. to study and advise Governor and Legislature on state policy issues

Alabama's SJR 71, a joint resolution approved by the Governor as Act 2019-269, establishes the Alabama Commission on Artificial Intelligence and Associated Technologies to review and advise the Governor and Legislature on the growth of AI and associated technology in the state and on AI use in governance, health care, education, environment, transportation and industries such as autonomous cars, industrial robots and disease-diagnosis algorithms. The commission was to consider whether the Legislature should create a permanent AI commission and report its findings and recommendations by May 1, 2020. Approved May 28, 2019 (Act 2019-269).

Artificial Intelligence and Children's Internet Safety Study Commission, created

Alabama's HJR 51, a joint resolution approved by the Governor as Act 2026-218, creates the Study Commission on Artificial Intelligence and Children's Internet Safety. Its 13 members include legislators from both chambers, the Attorney General, and appointees of the Mental Health Commissioner, Voices for Alabama's Children, the Alabama Cable and Broadband Association, TechNet, the Lieutenant Governor and the Alabama Broadcasters Association. It studies the effects of AI, social media and internet use on children, reviews other states' approaches and recommends legislation, reporting by November 1, 2026, after which it dissolves. Approved March 10, 2026.

Enacts the NY privacy act to require companies to disclose their methods of de-identifying personal information, to place special safeguards around data sharing and to allow consumers to obtain the names of all entities with whom their information is shared.

New York's A 4947 (the "New York privacy act") would add General Business Law Article 42-A. For solely automated decisions that materially contribute to denials of lending, housing, insurance, health care or similar services, controllers would have to disclose the automation, offer an appeal with meaningful human review and run annual impact assessments by an external, independent auditor or researcher. Consumers would also get opt-in consent, access, correction and deletion rights. AG penalties up to $15,000 per violation; private suits. Most sections would take effect two years after enactment. Referred to committee February 10, 2025 and January 7, 2026; not passed by either chamber.

A bill for an act establishing requirements and guidelines for conversational AI services, and providing civil penalties, and including applicability provisions. (Formerly SSB 3011.) Effective date: 07/01/2026. Applicability date: 07/01/2027.

Iowa's SF 2417 (Iowa Code ch. 554J) covers public conversational AI services built mainly to simulate human conversation. For known minors, operators must disclose AI use, take reasonable measures against sexual content and human-like claims, not give rewards at unpredictable intervals to boost engagement, and offer privacy tools. If a reasonable user would think it is human, it must say it is AI. Operators need self-harm crisis-referral protocols and may not knowingly and intentionally program it to claim licensed mental health care. AG enforces: the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per violation (penalty capped at $500,000). Signed May 2, 2026 (Acts Chapter 1068); applies July 1, 2027.

Makes various changes relating to health. (BDR 34-674)

Nevada's AB 406 bars public schools from using AI to perform school counselors', psychologists' and social workers' functions relating to pupils' mental health, and has the Department of Education develop a policy for AI use by staff providing those services. AI providers may not offer AI systems in Nevada specifically programmed to provide what would be professional mental or behavioral health care if done by a person, or claim an AI system can provide such care; civil penalty up to $15,000 per violation. Licensed providers may not use AI in giving care directly to patients, except for administrative support. Approved June 5, 2025 (Chapter 283); effective July 1, 2025.

Establishes requirements for the use of artificial intelligence, algorithm, or other software tools in utilization review and management; defines artificial intelligence.

New York's A 3991 would add Insurance Law § 3224-e and define artificial intelligence in Insurance Law § 107(a). A health care service plan using an AI, algorithm or other software tool for utilization review or management would have to ensure it bases determinations on the enrollee's history and clinical circumstances, does not supplant provider decision making, does not discriminate, and is open to inspection. Medical necessity denials, delays or modifications would have to be made by a licensed physician or other competent provider. Would take effect immediately. Referred to Insurance January 30, 2025 and January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.

AUTOMATED DECISION TOOLS

Illinois's HB 5116 (103rd General Assembly) would have created the Automated Decision Tools Act. On or before January 1, 2026, and annually after, a deployer of an automated decision tool would have to perform an impact assessment, notify people subject to a consequential decision, and keep a governance program to manage algorithmic discrimination risk. The Attorney General could sue. Died at Session Sine Die on January 7, 2025.

Strategy for Public Health Preparedness and Response to Artificial Intelligence Threats

The federal S. 501 (Strategy for Public Health Preparedness and Response to Artificial Intelligence Threats) would require the HHS Secretary, within 180 days after enactment, to submit a strategy on public health preparedness and biodefense against misuse of AI that threatens national health security. Introduced February 10, 2025 and referred to the Senate HELP Committee; no further action.

Prohibits discrimination through the use of clinical algorithms; provides exceptions for clinical algorithms that rely on variables to appropriately make decisions, including to identify, evaluate, and address health disparities.

New York's A 3993 would add Insurance Law § 3243-a providing that an insurer subject to the article shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability through the use of clinical algorithms in its decision-making, while permitting clinical algorithms that rely on variables to appropriately make decisions, including to identify, evaluate and address health disparities. Would take effect immediately. Referred to Insurance January 30, 2025 and January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.

An Act to Regulate the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Providing Certain Mental Health Services

Maine's LD 2082 (Public Law chapter 687) bars any person from providing, advertising or offering therapy or psychotherapy services to the public, including through Internet-based AI, unless a licensed professional provides them; violations fall under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. Licensed therapists may use AI for administrative or supplementary support (such as therapy notes) only if they keep full responsibility; supplementary use requires a recorded or transcribed session, written notice and client consent, and AI may not make independent therapeutic decisions or interact with clients therapeutically. Signed April 13, 2026.

relative to the regulation of artificial intelligence technologies.

New Hampshire's HB 1725 (2026) would have created RSA chapter 359-V, "Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance": a 7-member AI council, AI interaction disclosures, bans on AI developed with intent to unlawfully discriminate or for social scoring, limits on government biometric identification, a regulatory sandbox, and attorney general enforcement with civil penalties. The House voted it Inexpedient to Legislate on February 19, 2026, and it died.

Provides for notice requirements where an insurer authorized to write accident and health insurance in this state, a corporation organized pursuant to article forty-three of this chapter, or a health maintenance organization certified pursuant to article forty-four of the public health law uses…

New York's A 1456 would add Insurance Law § 338 requiring accident and health insurers, Article 43 corporations and Article 44 HMOs to tell insureds on their public websites about their use or lack of use of AI-based algorithms in utilization review, to submit those algorithms and training data to the Department for certification that bias risk is minimized, and to have clinical peer reviewers document review of individual records before an adverse determination. Fines would be up to $5,000 per violation or $10,000 per willful violation. Referred to Insurance January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.

Regulates the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of therapy or psychotherapy services by prohibiting the use of artificial intelligence to assist in providing supplementary support where the session is recorded or transcribed unless the patient is informed of the specific purpose of…

New York's A 9106, the "oversight of technology in mental health care act," would add Education Law § 6517. Only a licensed professional could provide or offer therapy to the public in New York, including through internet-based AI. Professionals could use AI only for administrative or supplementary support (with written notice and consent where sessions are recorded or transcribed), not for independent therapeutic decisions, direct therapeutic communication, unreviewed treatment plans or emotion detection. Civil penalty up to $50,000 per violation. Would take effect immediately. Referred to Higher Education September 26, 2025 (and January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.

Relates to the development and use of certain artificial intelligence systems

New York's A 8884-A, the "New York AI act," would add Civil Rights Law §§ 105 to 115. Developers and deployers of high-risk AI used in consequential decisions (e.g. jobs, education, housing, health care, finance) would have to take reasonable care to prevent algorithmic discrimination, give notice and appeal with human review, get audits, report to the Department of Financial Services and keep risk programs; social scoring would be banned. AG civil penalties: up to $25,000 (developers) or $10,000 (deployers) per violation. Would take effect one year after becoming law (audits, two years). Amended June 1, 2026 and recommitted to Science and Technology; not passed by either chamber.

Relates to the use of artificial intelligence by insurers and clinical peer reviewers for utilization review; establishes additional notice requirements for adverse determinations.

New York's A 11048 would add Insurance Law § 338 on AI-based algorithms in utilization review. Insurers would have to notify insureds, enrollees and providers of AI use, submit their algorithms and training data to the Superintendent with a certification, and could not use AI as the sole basis to deny, delay or modify care. Fines of up to $5,000 per violation ($10,000 if willful) would apply. Introduced April 24, 2026 and referred to the Insurance Committee; it has not passed either chamber.

Enacts the "New York artificial intelligence consumer protection act", in relation to preventing the use of artificial intelligence algorithms to discriminate against protected classes.

New York's S 1962, the New York artificial intelligence consumer protection act, would add General Business Law Article 45-A (sections 1550 to 1556). From January 1, 2027, developers and deployers of high-risk AI decision systems that make or substantially factor in consequential decisions (education, employment, lending, government services, health care, housing, insurance, legal services) would have to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, with impact assessments, notices and appeals. The Attorney General would have exclusive enforcement. Referred to Internet and Technology January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.

Regulates the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of therapy or psychotherapy services by prohibiting the use of artificial intelligence to assist in providing supplementary support where the session is recorded or transcribed unless the patient is informed of the specific purpose of…

New York's S 8484 would add Education Law § 6517 on AI in therapy and psychotherapy. A licensed professional could use AI only for supplementary support in recorded or transcribed sessions after written notice and the patient's consent, and could not let AI make independent therapeutic decisions or interact directly in therapeutic communication. Civil penalties up to $50,000 per violation. Committed to Rules June 5, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.

Relative to the use of artificial intelligence and other software tools in healthcare decision-making

Massachusetts S2632 would bar AI from denying, delaying or modifying health care on medical-necessity grounds, requiring a licensed professional to decide, and would limit AI in therapy: licensed therapists may use it only for administrative or supplementary support, with civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation. Committee recommended ought to pass and referred to Senate Ways and Means April 2, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.

Artificial intelligence, consumer protection

South Carolina's S 963 would enact the Consumer Protections in Interactions with Artificial Intelligence Systems Act (Chapter 31 of Title 37). Developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems used in consequential decisions would owe a duty of reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, with impact assessments, consumer notices and appeal rights. The Attorney General would have exclusive enforcement. Introduced February 26, 2026 and referred to the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee; it has not passed either chamber.

Health Claims & AI

South Carolina's S 443 would add Section 38-59-23 on health care coverage decisions made with artificial intelligence. Actions on coverage decisions could not be based solely on AI results or an automated decision-making tool, and a health care professional would have to supervise and meaningfully review decisions that modify or deny provider authorization requests. Introduced March 11, 2025 and referred to the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee; it has not passed either chamber.

Mississippi Medical Judgement Protection Act; create.

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.

To ensure accountability and transparency in artificial intelligence systems

Massachusetts H94 would add G.L. Chapter 93M requiring developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems used in consequential decisions (education, employment, lending, housing, health care, insurance, legal and government services) to guard against algorithmic discrimination, with Attorney General enforcement. On December 24, 2025 it accompanied H97, which was reported favorably and referred to House Ways and Means.

Providing consumer protections for artificial intelligence systems.

Washington's SB 6284 (1st substitute, 2026 session) would have required developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems used to make, or be a substantial factor in, consequential decisions on employment, housing, insurance, health care, education, lending, legal services and similar matters to guard against algorithmic discrimination. Deployer duties would start July 1, 2027, consumer notice July 1, 2026, and only the Attorney General could enforce. It cleared Senate Environment, Energy & Technology on February 3, 2026, was heard in Ways & Means on February 6, and died at adjournment on March 12.

Regulating high-risk artificial intelligence system development, deployment, and use.

Washington's SB 6120 (2026 session), the Senate companion to HB 2157, would have required developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems, those intended to make or be a substantial factor in consequential decisions such as employment, lending, housing, insurance, health care and education, to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination. It included developer documentation, deployer risk programs and impact assessments, consumer notices, and private lawsuits for injunctions. It had a first reading on January 14, 2026 and died at adjournment.

A bill for an act relating to artificial intelligence, including the use of artificial intelligence to create materials related to elections and protections in interactions with artificial intelligence systems, and making penalties applicable.

Iowa's HSB 294 would require a disclosure on AI-generated election material that advocates for or against a candidate or ballot issue, and would create Code chapter 554I requiring developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, with attorney general enforcement. The House committee voted 18-3 for passage on March 6, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Psychological, Clinical, Counseling, and Therapy Services

Florida's SB 344 (Grall) would create ss. 490.016 and 491.019, prohibiting licensees from using AI in the practice of psychology and school psychology, and licensees, registered interns and certificateholders from using AI in clinical social work, marriage and family therapy and mental health counseling, with exceptions for administrative support and consented session recording. Filed November 4, 2025; it died in the Health Policy Committee March 13, 2026.

A bill for an act relating to chatbots, including deployer requirements and interactions with minors. (Formerly HSB 647.)

Iowa's HF 2715 (formerly HSB 647) would require deployers of AI companions, public-facing chatbots and therapeutic chatbots to keep harm-response and self-harm protocols, disclose at the start and every three hours that the user is talking to AI, and take extra steps for minors. The attorney general could seek civil penalties up to $2,500 per violation. On the House calendar since February 24, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.

Mental health and artificial intelligence working group.

California's SB 579 (as amended in the Senate March 26, 2025) would require the Secretary of Government Operations to appoint, on or before July 1, 2026, a mental health and artificial intelligence working group to evaluate AI's role in mental health settings. The group would hold at least three public meetings, report to the Legislature by July 1, 2028 and issue a followup report by January 1, 2030, and the provisions would be repealed January 1, 2031. It was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 23, 2025 and is listed as an inactive bill that died.

Artificial intelligence; regulate use in health coverage decisions

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.

Artifical intelligence; prohibit use of in professional mental and behavioral health care.

Mississippi's HB 1048 (2026, as introduced) would have barred AI providers from offering AI systems programmed to provide professional mental or behavioral health care, or claiming such systems can provide it, and barred licensed mental health professionals from using AI in practice except for administrative and supplementary support, and for recording sessions with written informed consent 24 hours in advance. Violators would have faced civil penalties up to $15,000 per violation in Attorney General actions, and licensees board discipline. Referred January 16, 2026; it died in committee February 3, 2026.

A bill for an act relating to provider requirements concerning the mental health of users of an artificial intelligence chatbot, and providing civil penalties.

Iowa's SF 2415 would bar AI chatbot providers from offering or simulating professional mental health advice or claiming to be a licensed professional, require crisis-referral protocols and repeated AI disclosures, and make violations unfair practices enforced by the attorney general. Referred to Senate Technology February 19, 2026; subcommittee named February 24, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.

Insurance: health insurers; use of artificial intelligence tools to make decisions regarding claims; prohibit. Amends 1956 PA 218 (MCL 500.100 - 500.8302) by adding sec. 3406ss.

Michigan's HB 4536 would add section 3406ss to the Insurance Code of 1956 providing that an insurer that delivers, issues for delivery, or renews in Michigan a health insurance policy shall not deny, modify, or delay a claim based on a review using artificial intelligence. Introduced June 3, 2025; re-referred to the House Committee on Communications and Technology March 19, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.

Human services: medical services; use of artificial intelligence tools to make decisions regarding claims; prohibit. Amends 1939 PA 280 (MCL 400.1 - 400.119b) by adding sec. 107b.

Michigan's HB 4537 would add section 107b to the social welfare act (1939 PA 280) providing that the department or a contracted health plan shall not deny, modify, or delay a claim under the medical assistance program based on a review using artificial intelligence. Introduced June 3, 2025; re-referred to the House Committee on Communications and Technology March 19, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.

Promotes transparency and accountability in the use of artificial intelligence by health insurers to manage coverage and claims.

Rhode Island H 7190 (2026), as introduced on January 21, 2026, would add chapter 27-84 requiring health insurers to disclose to OHIC and DBR how they use AI to manage claims and coverage and to keep records of AI decisions for at least five years. A non-administrative adverse benefit determination on medically necessary care in which AI made, or was a substantial factor in, the decision would need review and approval by a provider with the same license status as the ordering provider. The text says it takes effect upon passage.

Health Tech Investment Act

The federal H.R. 6197 (Health Tech Investment Act) would amend Medicare's hospital outpatient payment rules so, for services furnished on or after January 1, 2026, algorithm-based healthcare services, meaning FDA-cleared or approved devices using AI or machine learning to yield clinical outputs, are assigned to a new technology payment classification based on manufacturer-submitted costs and kept there at least 5 years. Referred to the House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees November 20, 2025; not passed.

Relative to AI health communications and informed patient consent

Massachusetts' H 1210 would give patients the right to be told when health information they get was generated by AI, with instructions for reaching a human provider if the provider had not reviewed it. Health insurance carriers would have to disclose AI or automated decision tools used in claims review and file an annual report on AI algorithms and training data used in utilization review, with a bias attestation. Referred to Financial Services February 27, 2025; on February 9, 2026 it accompanied a study order (H 5066) and did not advance as its own bill.

Creates provisions relating to artificial intelligence in mental health

Missouri's SB 1444 (Senate Committee Substitute, 2026) would have added Section 407.3007, RSMo, barring anyone who develops or deploys AI in the state from advertising or representing that the AI is, or can act as, a mental health professional or provide therapy, psychotherapy or a mental health diagnosis. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Merchandising Practices Act, enforced by the Attorney General. The Senate General Laws Committee voted do pass on a committee substitute April 7, 2026; the bill died when the session ended May 15, 2026.

RISE Act of 2025 Responsible Innovation and Safe Expertise Act of 2025

The RISE Act would shield AI developers from civil liability for errors made by their AI products when licensed or certified professionals use them to serve clients, if the developer publishes a model card and its model specification (including system prompts) before deployment and gives professionals clear documentation of known limitations, failure modes and appropriate uses. The shield would not cover recklessness or willful misconduct, would be lost if disclosures are not updated within 30 days of a new version or newly found failure mode, and would preempt covered state-law claims except those for fraud, knowing misrepresentation or non-professional use. Introduced June 12, 2025.

Relative to health carrier recordkeeping requirements in utilization review, including specifications regarding the use of artificial intelligence.

New Hampshire's HB 1406 (2026), as amended by the House, would require health carriers to keep written records on their use of algorithms and AI in utilization review and require adverse determinations, including payment reductions and down coding, to be made by a qualified health care provider, with written notice and records. It passed the House with amendment on March 11, 2026; the Senate voted it Inexpedient to Legislate on May 7, 2026 and it was killed.

Establishes "Authentic Relationships Act"; prohibits artificial intelligence relationship simulation.

New Jersey's A2710 would create the Authentic Relationships Act. Providers could not design, develop, market or make available AI relationship simulations in New Jersey; AI could include features resembling intimate interaction only if used exclusively for a legitimate medical usage and not simulating a romantic or sexual relationship. The Attorney General could assess civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation, and harmed individuals could sue. Pre-filed for introduction in the 2026 session.

Disclosure of artificial intelligence use in health care.

Indiana's HB 1620 would have required a health care provider that uses AI technology to make or inform any decision in a patient's care, or to generate any part of a communication to the patient (including through a chat bot), to disclose that use to the patient. An insurer providing accident and sickness coverage would have had the same duty toward an insured. Introduced January 21, 2025 and referred to the House Committee on Public Health; the Indiana General Assembly's record marks it dead.

Pupil instruction: health framework: sexual health.

California's AB 1792 (Education Code § 51900.3) requires the Instructional Quality Commission, in the next revision of the Health Framework for California Public Schools, to consider including, and recommending to the State Board of Education, sexual health content teaching pupils about dating abuse and digital violence. AI figures in the digital-safety part: understanding the risks of nonconsensual intimate imagery, deepfakes, online grooming, sextortion, stalking and the misuse of generative AI. The content also covers legal rights and support resources and LGBTQIA+ pupils' experiences. Signed September 18, 2026 (Chapter 273); effective January 1, 2027.

Directs professional and occupational boards to promulgate rules for licensee use of generative artificial intelligence.

New Jersey's A4731, in its first reprint, would direct the Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs to adopt rules within six months setting a model policy for licensee use of generative AI, and each professional and occupational board to adopt it within nine months. Introduced March 10, 2026; reported by the Assembly Science, Innovation and Technology Committee with amendments on March 16, 2026.

Instructing the enrolling clerk of the senate to make corrections in S.B. No. 1964.

Artificial intelligence; prohibit use in provision of professional mental and behaioral health care.

Mississippi's HB 1720 (2026) would bar licensed mental and behavioral health professionals (counselors, psychologists, social workers, marriage and family therapists, art and music therapists) from using AI in their practice, except for administrative and supplementary support such as scheduling and billing. It would bar anyone from offering therapy to the public, including through Internet-based AI, unless a licensed professional conducts it. Civil penalty up to $10,000 per violation. It died in committee on February 3, 2026.

Providing for artificial intelligence in facilities, for artificial intelligence use by insurers and for artificial intelligence use by MA or CHIP managed care plans; imposing duties on the Department of Health, the Insurance Department and the Department of Human Services; and imposing penalties.

Pennsylvania's SB 1113 (2025-26) would add rules for AI in health care facilities, AI use by insurers and AI use by MA or CHIP managed care plans, with duties for the departments of Health, Insurance and Human Services and penalties. The captured text covers the facilities chapter: patient disclosure, responsible-use rules and annual AI compliance statements filed with the Department of Health. It was referred to the Senate Institutional Sustainability & Innovation Committee on January 9, 2026.

Providing for the use of artificial intelligence in mental health therapy and for enforcement.

Pennsylvania's HB 1993 (2025-26), the Artificial Intelligence in Mental Health Therapy Act, would bar mental health professionals from using AI to support recorded or transcribed therapy sessions without written notice and patient consent, bar AI providers from representing that an AI system can provide therapy or is a therapist, and bar AI from making independent therapeutic decisions. It was referred to the House Professional Licensure Committee on October 24, 2025.

Provides for a joint legislative committee to study regulations regarding artificial intelligence

Louisiana's HCR 66 is a concurrent resolution, adopted by the House 85-0 on May 9 and the Senate 35-0 on May 29, 2024, that requests the Joint Legislative Committee on Technology and Cybersecurity to study and make recommendations on the use and regulation of artificial intelligence. It cites risks in education, criminal justice evidence, finance, health care and revenue collection, and possible benefits for state government. The committee is to actively solicit data and testimony and report policy recommendations to the legislature annually. A concurrent resolution does not change the law.

Establishing the Comprehensive Massachusetts Consumer Data Privacy Act

Massachusetts S 33 would create a comprehensive consumer data privacy act. After a joint committee hearing on April 9, 2025, the committee folded it into new draft S2516 on May 12, 2025, so S33 itself does not move further. The successor, redrafted as S2608 and passed by the Senate 40-0 on September 25, 2025 as S2619, would let consumers opt out of profiling for solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. The House passed different text on June 4, 2026 and a conference committee was appointed in June 2026; nothing is law.

Consumer protection: privacy; personal data privacy act; create. Creates new act.

Michigan's SB 359 would create a Personal Data Privacy Act giving consumers rights over personal data, including opting out of profiling in furtherance of solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. Introduced June 5, 2025 and referred to the Committee on Finance, Insurance, and Consumer Protection, it was reported favorably without amendment on June 11, 2025 and referred to the Committee of the Whole on June 12, 2025; it has not passed either house.

Protecting consumers in interactions with artificial intelligence systems

Massachusetts's H 97 would add Chapter 93M requiring developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems (those making or substantially influencing decisions on education, employment, finance, government services, health care, housing, insurance or legal services) to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, with documentation, risk programs, impact assessments and consumer notices, and requiring disclosure when consumers interact with AI. Reported favorably and referred to House Ways and Means December 24, 2025; it has not passed either house.

Regulates the development and use of certain artificial intelligence systems to prevent algorithmic discrimination; requires independent audits of high risk AI systems; provides for enforcement by the attorney general as well as a private right of action.

New York's S 1169-B would regulate high-risk AI systems used in consequential decisions on employment, education, housing, health, finance and legal services. Developers and deployers would have to take reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, commission independent audits, file reports and keep a risk management program; social scoring AI would be banned. The Senate passed it June 3, 2026 and delivered it to the Assembly; it has not passed the Assembly.

Enacts the New York Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act establishing protections for individual rights with respect to computational algorithms; establishes protections against the use of algorithms involved in consequential decisions, such as those that impact people's rights, civil…

New York's A 9654 (the New York Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act) would bar developers and deployers from using covered algorithms in consequential actions (such as employment, housing, credit, health care, insurance, education, criminal justice and government services) in ways that discriminate or have a disparate impact on protected characteristics. It would require independent audits where harm is plausible. Referred to the Assembly Science and Technology Committee January 21, 2026; it has not passed either house.

Right to Override Act

The federal S. 2997 (Right to Override Act) would require covered entities that employ or engage health care professionals and use AI clinical decision support (AI/CDSS) to adopt an override policy, train staff and run an AI/CDSS committee, and would bar adverse employment action or retaliation for overriding an AI output. HHS would enforce Title I with civil monetary penalties; Labor would enforce Title II with penalties up to $76,987 per violation ($769,870 for repeats), alongside a private right of action. Introduced October 9, 2025 and referred to the Senate HELP Committee; no further action.

Computers and Electronic Processing - As enacted, requires TACIR to study artificial intelligence and submit a report to the governor and both speakers by January 31, 2027. - Amends TCA Title 29; Title 33; Title 39 and Title 47.

HB 1455 is the House companion of SB 1493, which became Tennessee Public Chapter 1066 after the House passed the Senate bill in its place on April 23, 2026. The law directs the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (TACIR) to study AI and report by January 31, 2027 on its risks (child safety, death or injury, property loss), ways to reduce them, ways to stop AI from giving dangerous prompts such as encouraging suicide or violent crime, and the risks of chatbots acting human or offering emotional support or health care. Introduced as a felony bill, it was rewritten into this study. Signed May 22, 2026; effective immediately.

Regulate the use of artificial intelligence by health insurers

Ohio's SB 164 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, including denials, delays or modifications based on medical necessity, based solely on AI results. Medical necessity determinations would require a licensed physician or qualified provider. It was introduced April 1, 2025 and referred to the Senate Financial Institutions, Insurance and Technology Committee April 2, 2025.

AI Chatbots-Licensing, Safety, and Privacy.

SB 963 would require a state license from the North Carolina Department of Justice to operate or distribute any chatbot dealing substantially with health information, with evidence of effectiveness, insurance, encryption, fast breach reporting and annual audits. A Chatbot Safety and Privacy Act would give larger chatbot providers a duty of loyalty: respond to users at risk of harm, prevent emotional dependence, disclose at each new interaction that the chatbot is not human and get consent, deidentify data, and keep sensitive data out of training. Users could sue for $1,000 per violation. Pending in the Senate.

Prohibits artificial intelligence companions from using features which are considered unsafe for minors

Passed both houses; awaiting the Governor. S 9051-B would bar operators of AI companions and other generative AI chatbots that give ongoing, adaptive responses from offering 'unsafe AI companion features' to New York users unless approved age-assurance methods show the user is not a minor. Unsafe features include claiming to be human or to feel emotions, claiming a personal or authority relationship, flattery, unprompted emotional questions, recalling personal or health details after 12 hours, encouraging secrecy or isolation, promoting self-harm, and sexual content. Customer-service and internal business bots are exempt. Fines up to $25,000 per violation. If signed, effective Jan. 1, 2027.

Requires healthcare providers and healthcare facilities to inform patients of the use of artificial intelligence to memorialize patient visits.

Rhode Island's H 7538 Sub A adds Chapter 23-106 to the General Laws. Healthcare providers and healthcare facilities that use AI to document in-person or telehealth visits must notify patients of the use of AI for that sole purpose and review the AI-generated documentation for accuracy after the visit. The Senate passed Sub A and the House concurred June 11, 2026; signed June 22, 2026 (Chapter 199); effective upon passage (June 22, 2026).

AI-Ready Bio-Data Standards Act

The federal H.R. 7907 (AI-Ready Bio-Data Standards Act) would have the NIST Director, within 2 years after enactment, facilitate definitions, standards, resources and frameworks to make biological datasets from qualified federally funded research AI-ready, and set up an advisory group, a dataset repository and testing. The section would end 10 years after enactment. Introduced March 12, 2026 and referred to the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee; no further action.

AI in Health Care Efficiency and Study Act

The federal H.R. 7064 (AI in Health Care Efficiency and Study Act) would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services, not later than 18 months after enactment, to conduct a study of strategies for applying AI across the health care industry to improve administrative and clerical processes while protecting patient data privacy and security in HHS programs and activities. The Secretary would report to Congress 6 months after finishing the study. Introduced January 14, 2026 and referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee; no further action.

Workforce of the Future Act of 2025

The federal S. 3319 (Workforce of the Future Act of 2025) would require the Secretaries of Labor, Commerce and Education to report jointly on AI's impact on jobs, authorize Education Department grants to expand emerging and advanced technology education (including AI), with $160,000,000 for fiscal year 2026, and authorize Labor Department grants to train workers in industries most impacted by AI, with $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2026. Introduced December 3, 2025 and referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; no further action.

Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act of 2025

The federal S. 3308 (Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act of 2025) would bar developers and deployers from offering or using a covered algorithm in a way that causes or contributes to disparate impact or otherwise discriminates based on a protected characteristic in consequential actions such as employment, education, housing, health care, credit, insurance and government benefits. It would require independent-auditor evaluations and annual assessments, public disclosures, human alternatives and appeals, with enforcement by the FTC, State attorneys general and private suits. Introduced December 2, 2025 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee; no further action.

AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act

The federal S. 3108 (AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act) would require covered entities, meaning publicly traded companies, federal agencies and certain non-publicly-traded companies identified by Labor Department regulations, to disclose to the Secretary of Labor, within 30 days after each quarter, AI-related layoffs, hires, unfilled positions and retraining. The Secretary would publish quarterly reports within 60 days after each quarter. Introduced November 5, 2025 and referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; no further action.

MIND Act of 2025 Management of Individuals’ Neural Data Act of 2025

The federal S. 2925 (MIND Act of 2025) would direct the FTC to study the governance of neural data and related biometric and behavioral data, including how AI changes the risks, and report to Congress within 1 year after enactment, with $10,000,000 authorized. OSTP would then develop guidance, OMB would issue binding guidance, and federal agencies could not procure or operate neurotechnology that processes neural data inconsistently with it. Introduced September 29, 2025 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee; no further action.

Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2025

The federal H.R. 5511 (Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2025) would direct the FTC to issue regulations within 2 years requiring covered entities to assess the impact of covered algorithms before and after deployment and file summary reports. Covered entities include those with over $50,000,000 in average annual gross receipts or $250,000,000 in equity value, or data on over 1,000,000 consumers, households or devices. Violations would be treated as FTC rule violations, and state attorneys general could sue. Introduced September 19, 2025 and referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee; no further action.

Artificial intelligence; AI devices in health care; qualified end-user; deployer; quality assurance program; State Department of Health; effective date.

Oklahoma's HB 1915, as introduced, would require AI devices used in health care that are medical devices under federal law to be deployed under FDA rules and used only by a qualified end-user (a licensed physician able to perform the task without the device). Hospitals, practices and other deployers would have to run a quality assurance program, an AI governance group and a device inventory, with penalties set by the State Department of Health. Referred to the House Rules committee February 4, 2025; the bill died when the 2026 legislative session ended on May 14, 2026 without passing.

Healthy Technology Act of 2025

The federal H.R. 238 (Healthy Technology Act of 2025) would amend section 503(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act so that "practitioner licensed by law to administer such drug" includes AI and machine learning technology that is authorized by a State statute to prescribe the drug and is approved, cleared or authorized under FDA section 510(k), 513, 515 or 564. Introduced January 7, 2025 and referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee; no further action.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care

Colorado's HB 26-1139 regulates AI in utilization review. Insurers, PBMs, utilization review organizations, behavioral health administrative services organizations and managed care entities that use it must ensure the AI relies on the individual's clinical information, not solely group data, does not unlawfully discriminate, keeps audit logs and is periodically reviewed, and must disclose their AI use and human oversight to regulators. A medical-necessity denial may not rest solely on AI output without a competent clinician's review and approval. Health plans, Medicaid and CHP+ may not pay for psychotherapy conducted by AI. Signed June 2, 2026 (Chapter 325); effective January 1, 2027.

AI-Ready Bio-Data Standards Act

The federal S. 4069 (AI-Ready Bio-Data Standards Act) would require the Director of NIST, within 2 years of enactment, to establish definitions, standards, resources and frameworks so that biological datasets from qualified federally funded research are AI-ready, meaning generated and formatted so they can be effectively used to train AI models. Referred to the Senate Commerce Committee March 12, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.

Provides for notice requirements where an insurer authorized to write accident and health insurance in this state, a corporation organized pursuant to article forty-three of this chapter, or a health maintenance organization certified pursuant to article forty-four of the public health law uses…

New York's A 9149 (2023-2024 session) would have added Insurance Law § 338. Accident and health insurers, article 43 corporations and certified HMOs would have had to post on their websites whether they use AI-based algorithms in utilization review, submit the algorithms and training data to the Department for bias certification, and ensure a clinical peer reviewer documents review of individual clinical records before an adverse determination. Penalties included fines up to $5,000 per violation ($10,000 if willful) and license action. Introduced February 8, 2024 and referred to the Insurance Committee; it never advanced and died at the end of the 2023-2024 session.

Algorithmic Addiction Fund - Establishment

Maryland's SB 739 (2024) would have created the Algorithmic Addiction Fund, a special nonlapsing fund holding revenue the State receives from judgments or settlements with technology or social media companies on State-law damages claims, plus money appropriated in the State budget, for algorithmic addiction prevention and treatment. The Secretary of Health would set goals, run a grant program and report each November 1. A Senate Finance hearing was set for February 20, 2024; it died when the session ended.

TRANSPARENCY IN DOWNCODING ACT

The Transparency in Downcoding Act regulates how health care payors reduce the billing code on medical claims. Section 15 prohibits a payor from implementing any policy or using any algorithm or other automated process, system or tool that bypasses evaluation of the information submitted by the billing health care professional in order to downcode a claim. Payors may use automated processes to flag claims that may justify downcoding under AMA CPT coding guidelines, but every downcoding determination must be made or reviewed by a natural person. The Act applies to policies issued, amended, delivered or renewed on or after January 1, 2028, and is a limit on home rule powers.

Delivery of professional services preclusion through artificial intelligence directly to consumers

Not law. Minnesota's SF 4927 would have added Minn. Stat. 325F.701, barring the owner of an AI model, or any business or person using one, from letting the model provide a professional service (one the state licenses, certifies or registers) to a consumer unless a credentialed person operates it during the service. A credentialed professional could still use AI as a tool. The attorney general would enforce it under section 8.31. Introduced March 26, 2026 and never left committee.

Prohibits advertising artificial intelligence system as licensed mental health professional.

New Jersey's A799 would bar anyone who develops or deploys an artificial intelligence system in New Jersey from advertising or representing that the system is, or can act as, a licensed mental health professional. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act.

REGISTERED NURSE USE OF AI

Illinois's SB 3702 would amend the Nurse Practice Act to bar AI systems from providing nursing services in place of a registered professional nurse in direct patient care, require a nurse to get patient consent before AI records or analyzes an encounter, and require written notice that AI supports but does not replace the nurse. Health care entities employing nurses and deploying AI in direct patient care would have to keep validation and bias monitoring records, train nurses, and not rely solely on AI for staffing, triage, admission, discharge or transfer decisions. Introduced February 5, 2026; re-referred to Assignments May 22, 2026 under Senate Rule 3-9(a); it has not passed either house.

Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2025

The federal S. 2164 (Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2025) would direct the FTC to issue regulations within 2 years requiring covered entities that deploy automated decision systems in critical decisions to assess their impact before and after deployment and file summary reports. Covered entities include those with over $50,000,000 in average annual gross receipts or $250,000,000 in equity value, or data on over 1,000,000 consumers, households or devices. Violations would be treated as FTC rule violations; state attorneys general could sue. Introduced June 25, 2025 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee; no further action.

AN ACT relating to the promotion of family well-being and making an appropriation therefor.

Kentucky's HB 734, the omnibus ALPHA Act on family well-being, included a provision that would bar the Cabinet for Health and Family Services from relying exclusively on automated, AI-based or algorithmic software to identify fraud in public assistance programs and from denying, discontinuing or reducing benefits without staff review of the documentation. Introduced February 26, 2024; sent to the House Appropriations & Revenue Committee March 5, 2024. It died when the 2024 session ended without passing.

AN ACT relating to the promotion of family well-being and making an appropriation therefor.

Kentucky's SB 34, the omnibus ALPHA Act on family well-being, included a provision that would bar the Cabinet for Health and Family Services from relying exclusively on automated, AI-based or algorithmic software to identify fraud in public assistance programs and from denying, discontinuing or reducing benefits without staff review of the documentation. Introduced January 2, 2024; sent to the Senate Appropriations & Revenue Committee January 5, 2024. It died when the 2024 session ended without passing.

Artificial intelligence; use of systems for student instruction.

Virginia's HB 1186 adds Code § 22.1-20.2:1. The Department of Education, consulting school divisions and stakeholders, must compile how public schools use AI for instruction and post guidance for its safe, ethical and equitable use. The guidance covers student data privacy (FERPA, COPPA), teacher training, transparency, data agreements that bar using student or division data to train outside AI models, and bias, and must ensure approved AI uses give teachers access to transcripts of students' AI interactions. School boards must adopt policies following it. If funded, the Department runs an AI pilot program; that authority expires July 1, 2030. Identical to SB 394; effective July 1, 2026.

Adopt the Agricultural Data Privacy Act and the Conversational Artificial Intelligence Safety Act

Nebraska's LB 525 creates the Conversational Artificial Intelligence Safety Act, operative July 1, 2027, and an Agricultural Data Privacy Act. Operators of public AI chat services must tell minors they are talking to AI, take reasonable measures to prevent sexual content and claims of being human, sentient or emotionally or romantically attached for minors, offer privacy and parental tools, disclose AI to anyone who could be misled, keep a suicide and self-harm referral protocol, and not claim to provide mental health care. The Attorney General enforces: at least $1,000 per violation, up to $500,000 per operator. Signed April 14, 2026.

Health care plans; to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in determinations of coverage

Alabama's SB 63 (Act 2026-589) limits how health benefit plan providers, including insurers, HMOs and utilization review contractors, use AI in prior authorization. AI-assisted medical necessity determinations must rest on the enrollee's medical history, clinical circumstances presented by the requesting provider and other information in the record, and any denial, delay or modification must be made by a licensed physician or other competent health care professional. Providers must certify their AI annually to the Department of Insurance, disclose its use and review its outcomes. Fines up to $5,000 for repeat violations. Signed April 16, 2026; effective October 1, 2026.

Use of artificial intelligence in psychotherapy services regulated, and civil penalties provided.

Not law. Minnesota's HF 3893 (2nd engrossment) would have added Minn. Stat. 214.165, barring anyone from offering therapy or psychotherapy to the public unless a licensed professional conducts it, and barring licensed professionals from using AI to make independent therapeutic decisions, interact with clients therapeutically, generate unreviewed treatment plans or provide assessments. AI could do only administrative support. Licensing boards could fine up to $50,000 per violation. It was re-referred to Commerce Finance and Policy on April 7, 2026 and went no further.

Prohibits advertising artificial intelligence system as licensed mental health professional.

New Jersey's S4463 would bar anyone who develops or deploys an AI system in New Jersey from advertising or representing to the public that it is, or can act as, a licensed mental health professional. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act. Introduced May 19, 2025. A bill of the Legislature's 2024-2025 session, which ended January 13, 2026.

Artificial intelligence; course; public schools

Vetoed. HB 4005 would have required every Arizona school district, starting in the 2027-2028 school year, to teach the ethical, moral and educational uses of AI to students in grades 3, 6, 8, 10 and 12, through a separate course or within existing classes. The Department of Education would have adopted the curriculum, covering prompting techniques, ethics and how AI might threaten human health and existence, and districts would have reported instruction and enrollment each October. Both chambers passed it, but the Governor vetoed it on June 19, 2026.

Relating to the use of certain automated systems in, and certain adverse determinations made in connection with, the health benefit claims process.

Texas's SB 815 bars utilization review agents from using an automated decision system to make, wholly or partly, an adverse determination (a finding that health care services are not medically necessary or appropriate, or are experimental or investigational). Such tools may still be used for administrative support or fraud detection, and the insurance commissioner may audit and inspect an agent's use of them at any time. Adverse determination notices must describe the screening criteria and review procedures used. Signed June 20, 2025; effective September 1, 2025; applies to utilization review for health benefit plans delivered, issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2026.

A bill for an act relating to the licensure of artificial intelligence augmented and autonomous service providers, and including penalties.

Iowa's HSB 766, a House Appropriations study bill, would create a board of autonomous medical practice to license AI augmented and autonomous service providers (AAASPs) that run clinical AI services. A license would be required for fully autonomous AI and for certain advisory and supervised AI. Providers would face patient disclosures, a duty of loyalty, insurance and bond requirements, and civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation per day. A subcommittee recommended passage March 24, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.

Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act

Colorado's SB 24-205 (the Colorado AI Act) covers high-risk AI that makes, or is a substantial factor in making, consequential decisions such as hiring, lending, housing, insurance and health care. Developers and deployers must use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination; deployers need risk programs, impact assessments and notices. Signed May 17, 2024 (Chapter 198). Duties run from June 30, 2026 (SB 25B-004) until SB 26-189 replaces Part 17 on January 1, 2027. Under a stipulated April 27, 2026 order in X. AI LLC v. Weiser (D. Colo.), the Attorney General may not start enforcement over violations through 14 days after a ruling on xAI's planned preliminary-injunction motion.

Delivery of professional services through artificial intelligence directly to consumers precluded, and enforcement and penalties provided.

Not law. Minnesota's HF 4979 would have added Minn. Stat. 325F.701, barring the owner of an AI model, or any business or person using one, from letting the model provide a professional service (one the state licenses, certifies or registers) to a consumer unless a credentialed person operates it during the service. A credentialed professional could still use AI as a tool. The attorney general would enforce it under section 8.31. Introduced April 16, 2026 and never left committee.

Establishes regulations regarding the use of artificial intelligence in mental health care treatments.

Rhode Island's Oversight of Artificial Intelligence Technology in Mental Health Care Act bars any person or company from offering therapy or psychotherapy to the public, including through internet AI, unless a licensed professional provides it. Licensed professionals may not let AI make independent therapeutic decisions, set treatment plans, or talk with clients therapeutically outside an established care relationship, and need written informed consent before using emotionally bonding AI or AI companions on recorded or transcribed sessions. FDA-cleared tools, religious counseling, peer support and approved research are exempt. Effective June 22, 2026.

An act relating to regulating the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of mental health services

Act 156 bars a corporation or other entity from providing, advertising or offering mental health services to the public, including through AI, unless the services are provided by a licensed mental health professional or are part of an approved institutional review board or privacy board study. Professionals may still use HIPAA-compliant AI tools if they review and approve the services, and FDA-authorized digital therapeutics prescribed or recommended by a professional are allowed. Violations by entities are enforced under the Consumer Protection Act, including by private suits. Effective June 17, 2026.

A bill for an act relating to health carriers standards of conduct; utilization review organizations, artificial intelligence, audits, and prior authorizations; certificate of need processes; and including applicability provisions. (Formerly HF 2438.) Effective date: 07/01/2026.

Iowa's HF 2635 is a health insurance and certificate-of-need law. Its AI rule (Iowa Code § 514F.8(2A)) lets a utilization review organization use an AI-based algorithm or system for the initial review of a prior authorization request, but for a request based on medical necessity AI may not be the sole basis for denying, delaying or downgrading it. The act also requires denials to be made by a same- or similar-specialty physician or clinical peer, sets audit deadlines, bars prior authorization for certain cancer screenings and inpatient emergencies, and raises certificate-of-need thresholds. Signed May 13, 2026 (Acts Chapter 1087); effective July 1, 2026, with many rules applying from 2027.

Health insurance

Not law. S. 920 would have required South Carolina health insurers that use AI, algorithms or other software for prior authorization to base decisions on the patient's own medical history and clinical circumstances, have a licensed physician or other qualified professional make every denial, reduction or deferral, tell enrollees that AI is used, certify yearly that their tools are fair and non-discriminatory, and share denial rates on request, with Department of Insurance enforcement. The Senate Banking and Insurance Committee reported it favorably on April 30, 2026, but it was never taken up before the regular session ended.

Imposes liability for damages caused by a chatbot impersonating certain licensed professionals

New York's A 6545-C would add General Business Law section 390-f. Chatbot operators could not knowingly let a chatbot impersonate a practitioner of certain licensed professions or an attorney in a way that would be a crime or unauthorized practice if done by a person, and would have to give users clear notice that they are talking to an AI chatbot. Referred to the Rules Committee May 28, 2026, then reported and ordered to third reading on the Assembly floor calendar (Rules Report cal. 294) June 1, 2026; the Assembly never voted on it, and it has not passed either house.

Relating to use of artificial intelligence in utilization review conducted for health benefit plans.

Texas HB 4018 (2025), as introduced, would have added Insurance Code Sec. 4201.156, requiring a utilization review agent that uses an AI-based algorithm or other software tool to ensure it bases determinations on the enrollee's clinical history and circumstances, does not override a physician or provider, and does not discriminate. The agent could not use AI as the sole basis to deny, delay or modify health care services. It died when the regular session adjourned June 2, 2025.

Providing for artificial intelligence in facilities, for artificial intelligence use by insurers and for artificial intelligence use by MA or CHIP managed care plans; imposing duties on the Department of Health, the Insurance Department and the Department of Human Services; and imposing penalties.

Pennsylvania's HB 1925 (2025-26), as amended (Printer's No. 3963), would add rules for AI in health care facilities, AI use by insurers and AI use by MA or CHIP managed care plans, with duties for the departments of Health, Insurance and Human Services and penalties. The captured text covers the facilities chapter: patient disclosure and responsible-use rules for AI in clinical decision making. It passed the House 144-59 on September 30, 2026.

An act relating to regulating developers and deployers of certain automated decision systems

Vermont's H.340 (2025-2026 biennium) would have regulated developers and deployers of automated decision systems used for consequential decisions in areas such as education, employment, housing, health care, financial services and government services. It would have made algorithmic discrimination unlawful, required independent audits and reports to the Attorney General, notices, explanations and human-review appeals for consumers, and a risk management program. It was referred to House Commerce on February 25, 2025 and died when the biennium ended.

A bill for an act relating to utilization review organizations' use of artificial intelligence, prior authorization determinations and exemptions, and audits, and including applicability provisions. (Formerly SSB 3118.)

Iowa's SF 2421 (formerly SSB 3118) would have let utilization review organizations use an AI-based algorithm for initial review of prior authorization requests but not as the sole basis to deny, delay or downgrade a medical-necessity request, and would have required review by a qualified reviewer or clinical peer, written reasons, and deadlines for claim audits. HF 2635 was substituted and SF 2421 was withdrawn March 4, 2026.

Private Review Agents; certain decisions with regard to the provision of insurance coverage for healthcare services shall not be based solely on artificial intelligence systems; provide

Georgia Act 411, effective January 1, 2027, adds O.C.G.A. 33-46-7.1 for health insurance utilization review. Private review agents and utilization review entities may use AI and other software tools as part of a utilization review plan that meets state standards and Insurance Commissioner rules, including to automate tasks and take part in decisions. But no adverse determination may be issued to a patient until a natural person qualified as a private review agent or utilization review entity conducts a review in which a clinical peer participates, and AI may never supersede that clinical peer's judgment.

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29; Title 33; Title 39 and Title 47, relative to artificial intelligence.

Tennessee Public Chapter 1066 directs the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (TACIR) to study artificial intelligence and report to the governor and both speakers by January 31, 2027. The study must assess AI risks to child safety, of death or injury and of property loss; explore ways to reduce them and review national, international and industry standards; look at ways to stop AI from giving dangerous prompts such as encouraging suicide or violent crime; and identify the risks of chatbots acting human or offering emotional support or health care. Introduced as a felony bill, it was rewritten into this study. Signed May 22, 2026; effective immediately.

Relative to the use of artificial intelligence and other software tools in healthcare decision-making

Massachusetts S46 would amend G.L. c. 176O, s. 12 so that insurers using AI, algorithms or software for medical-necessity review may not let the tool deny, delay or modify care; only a licensed physician or competent licensed professional may decide. On October 16, 2025 it accompanied new draft S2632, which on April 2, 2026 was sent to Senate Ways and Means with an ought-to-pass recommendation.

Regulating high-risk artificial intelligence system development, deployment, and use.

Washington's HB 2157 (Substitute House Bill, 2026 session) would have required developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems, those specifically intended to make, or be a substantial factor in making, consequential decisions such as employment, lending, housing, insurance, health care and education, to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, with developer documentation, deployer risk programs and impact assessments, consumer notices, and private lawsuits. It died when the session adjourned March 12, 2026, after the House Rules "X" file on February 19.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE – Adds to existing law to establish the Conversational AI Safety Act.

Idaho's Conversational AI Safety Act (Idaho Code Title 48, ch. 21) regulates public-facing AI chatbots that simulate human conversation. Operators must disclose that the service is AI when a reasonable person could be misled, adopt a suicide-ideation protocol that refers users to crisis services, and not claim the service provides professional mental health care. For users they know or reasonably believe are minors, operators must show AI disclosures, avoid engagement rewards, block sexually explicit content, and prevent claims of sentience, emotional dependence and romantic role-play. The Attorney General enforces it. Effective July 1, 2027.

Commerce and Trade; private entities that employ certain AI systems to guard against discrimination caused by such systems; provide

Georgia's SB 167 would add a new Chapter 16 to Title 10 regulating automated decision systems used for consequential decisions (education, employment, essential government services, financial or lending services, healthcare, housing, insurance and legal services). Developers could not make available a system that results in algorithmic discrimination and would have to provide information to the Attorney General. According to its title, deployers would also have duties, and the Attorney General would enforce. The bill was read and referred on February 13, 2025 and died when the session ended.

Health Tech Investment Act

The federal S. 1399 (Health Tech Investment Act) would amend the Social Security Act so Medicare pays for FDA-cleared or approved AI and machine learning "algorithm-based healthcare services" under a new technology ambulatory payment classification, set from the manufacturer's submitted cost and kept for at least 5 years. It applies to outpatient services furnished on or after January 1, 2026. Introduced April 9, 2025 and referred to the Senate Finance Committee; no further action.

IDPH-DIAGNOSTIC ALGORITHM

Illinois's HB 5115 (103rd General Assembly) would have amended the University of Illinois Hospital Act, the Hospital Licensing Act and the Medical Patient Rights Act. Before using a diagnostic algorithm to diagnose a patient, a hospital would have to confirm it is certified by the Departments of Public Health and Innovation and Technology, is as or more accurate than other means, and is not the only diagnosis method available. It was not passed before the 103rd General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 7, 2025).

An act relating to neurological rights and the use of artificial intelligence technology in health and human services

Act 101 states Vermont's intent for the ethical and responsible use of AI in health care and human services and recognizes individual neurological rights, including mental and neural data privacy, freedom of thought, and protection from unauthorized access to or manipulation of brain activity (18 V.S.A. ch. 42C). It adds members to the state Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council, extends the Council to June 30, 2030, and directs it to report by January 15, 2027 on neurological-rights protections, generative AI use by regulated professions, and AI in health insurance utilization review. Effective May 18, 2026.

Creates the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Environmental Accountability Act

Missouri's HB 2239 (Artificial Intelligence Data Center Environmental Accountability Act) would apply to AI-optimized data centers of 100 megawatts or more built, expanded or permitted from August 28, 2027. They would need closed-loop water cooling (or an equivalent verified by the Department of Natural Resources), continuous monitoring and emergency protocols, and annual public environmental and health reports, with civil penalties up to $50,000 per day. Referred to the House Emerging Issues committee May 15, 2026; the bill died when the 2026 regular session ended in May 2026 without being truly agreed to and finally passed.

Relating To Algorithmic Discrimination.

Hawaii's SB 59 (2025) would have added an Algorithmic Discrimination chapter. Covered entities (those holding data on more than 25,000 residents, over $15,000,000 in receipts, data brokers, or service providers) could not use algorithmic processes using machine learning, AI or similar techniques to decide eligibility for credit, insurance, education, employment, housing or public accommodations in a discriminatory way, and would owe notices, annual audits and reports. Penalties up to $10,000 per violation, plus private suits. Referred January 16, 2025 and carried over to 2026, it died.

Health insurance

South Carolina's Bill S0920 requires health insurers to consider factors like bias and transparency when using AI, mandates disclosures about AI usage to enrollees, and details disciplinary actions such as fines or license suspensions for violations.

Artificial Intelligence and Therapy or Psychotherapy

South Carolina's S 788 (committee-amended text of April 28, 2026) would add Chapter 86 to Title 40. A licensed professional could not use AI for supplementary support in therapy where the session is recorded or transcribed unless the patient is told in writing that AI will be used and why and gives written consent. No one could knowingly and intentionally offer therapy to the public, including through internet-based AI, unless a licensed professional conducts it, and professionals could not let AI make independent therapeutic decisions. Licensing boards would assess civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation. It passed the Senate and is in a House committee; not enacted.

Artificial intelligence; definitions; requiring operators make certain disclosure; preventative measures for minor account holders; prohibitions; enforcement authority to Attorney General; civil penalty. Effective date.

Not law. SB 1521 would have required operators of public conversational AI services to tell minor users they are talking to AI, through a constantly visible disclaimer or at the start and every 30 minutes, prevent statements suggesting a human for minor accounts, offer minors no engagement rewards, never present the AI as providing professional mental health care, and refer users expressing suicidal ideation to crisis services. The Attorney General could seek $1,000 per violation, capped at $500,000 per company. The Senate (43-0) and House (90-0) passed different versions, but the Senate never voted on the House amendments, so it died with the session.

Relating To Health Care.

Hawaii's House Bill 1787 (2026) would have set rules for health carriers and utilization review organizations that use AI, algorithms or other software tools in utilization review: determinations would have to rest on individual clinical history, be open to commissioner inspection and be reviewed at least quarterly. It would also have barred using these tools to deny, delay or modify care, and required a licensed provider to review adverse actions. It was referred to committees January 26, 2026 and not enacted.

Artificial intelligence chatbot technology requirements provision

Not law. SF 4997 would have barred chatbot operators in Minnesota from letting chatbots give substantive medical, mental health or legal advice that would require a license, with a private right of action that a disclaimer could not waive, and required clear notice that users are talking to AI. Companion chatbot operators would have had to use industry-standard methods to prevent self-harm content and detect minors, suspend use for at least 72 hours and show crisis contacts when self-harm appears, and would have been liable, strictly so for minors, for resulting self-harm. It was introduced April 7, 2026 and never left committee.

Enacts into law major components of legislation necessary to implement the state transportation, economic development and environmental conservation budget for the 2025-2026 state fiscal year; relates to the waterfront commission act; makes amendments to change "applicant" to "licensee or…

New York's 2025-26 budget bill (Chapter 58 of 2025) includes two AI laws. Part U requires operators of AI companions (AI that simulates a sustained human-like relationship) to make reasonable efforts to detect and address suicidal ideation or self-harm and refer users to crisis services such as 988, and to tell users at the start of an interaction and every three hours that they are not talking to a human; the Attorney General can seek up to $15,000 a day (in effect since November 5, 2025). Part X requires businesses using personalized algorithmic pricing to show 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA' (since July 8, 2025).

Senate Substitute for HB 2313 by Committee on Federal and State Affairs - Prohibiting the use of the artificial intelligence platform DeepSeek and other artificial intelligence platforms controlled by a country of concern on state-owned devices and on any state network and the use of genetic sequencers or operational software used for genetic analysis that is produced in a foreign adversary.

Kansas's Senate Substitute for HB 2313 (2025) bars using state-owned or state-issued devices to access DeepSeek or any AI model controlled, directly or indirectly, by a country of concern (China including Hong Kong, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela; Taiwan excluded). State agency networks must block these platforms and agencies must delete existing accounts; law enforcement and cybersecurity investigations are exempt. It also bars state-funded medical and research facilities from using genetic sequencers or analysis software from a foreign adversary. Approved April 8, 2025; it takes effect on its publication in the statute book.

Prohibits advertising artificial intelligence system as licensed mental health professional.

New Jersey's S735 would bar anyone who develops or deploys an artificial intelligence system in New Jersey from advertising or representing that the system is, or can act as, a licensed mental health professional. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act.

Directing the Joint State Government Commission to establish an advisory committee to conduct a study on the field of artificial intelligence and its impact and potential future impact in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania's House Resolution 170 directs the Joint State Government Commission, with an advisory committee of state officials, House members, labor, civil liberties, academic, AI, medical, business and other experts, to investigate AI, recommend how to grow the state's emerging technology markets and use AI in state government, and study how other states regulate AI. Its report, due 18 months after adoption, covers AI's benefits and risks, possible legislation, a definition of AI, worker and employer rights, disinformation, student use and fraudulent impersonation. Adopted by the House July 3, 2024 (125-77); a resolution of one chamber that does not change the law.

Providing consumer protections for artificial intelligence systems.

Washington's HB 2667 (2026 session), the House companion to SB 6284, would have required deployers of high-risk AI systems used for consequential decisions on education, employment, lending, health care, housing, insurance, legal services and similar matters to guard against algorithmic discrimination. Deployer duties would start July 1, 2027 and consumer notice July 1, 2026; only the Attorney General could enforce. It had a first reading on January 26, 2026, never got a hearing and died at adjournment on March 12.

Enacts the "New York artificial intelligence consumer protection act", in relation to preventing the use of artificial intelligence algorithms to discriminate against protected classes.

New York's A 768, the "New York artificial intelligence consumer protection act," would add General Business Law Article 45-A. Beginning January 1, 2027, developers and deployers of high-risk AI decision systems used in consequential decisions (education, employment, lending, government services, health care, housing, insurance, legal services) would have to use reasonable care against algorithmic discrimination, with documentation, impact assessments, consumer notices and appeal rights. Only the Attorney General would enforce it. Referred to Consumer Affairs and Protection January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.

Establishing limitations on the use of artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence technology to deliver mental health care, with exceptions for administrative support functions

West Virginia's HB 4770 (2026 regular session, committee substitute) would have limited AI in mental health care. AI could assist only with administrative or supplementary support, with patient care, reimbursement or claims decisions not based exclusively on AI; AI could not act as or be marketed as a licensed professional, and licensed professionals could not let AI make independent therapeutic decisions. Violations would have carried civil penalties up to $10,000 each. It passed House Health and Human Resources but died in House Finance when the session ended March 14, 2026.

Prescribes requirements and safeguards for the use of an artificial intelligence, algorithm, or other software tool for the purpose of utilization review for health and accident insurance.

New York's S 7896 would add Public Health Law § 4905-a and Insurance Law § 4905-a. A utilization review agent using AI, an algorithm or another software tool based on medical necessity must base determinations on the enrollee's clinical history, may not rely solely on a group dataset, and must not let the tool supplant provider decision-making. The tool could not deny, delay or modify services on medical necessity grounds; only a licensed physician or health professional could. Referred to Health January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.

Impersonation of certain licensed professionals by chatbot; definitions, notice, civil liability.

Virginia's HB 669 (2026 Regular Session) would have barred chatbots from acting as licensed professionals. As introduced, a chatbot proprietor could not let a chatbot give responses or take actions that would be the unlicensed practice of fields such as medicine, nursing, dentistry, psychology or law. It failed: left in House Appropriations Committee on February 18, 2026.

Health care services: artificial intelligence.

California's SB 503 targets bias in clinical AI. Developers and deployers (health facilities, clinics and medical practices) of clinical decision support systems, AI that aids decisions on timing of care, diagnosis or treatment, must make reasonable efforts to find systems with known or foreseeable risk of biased impacts based on protected characteristics. Developers must mitigate those risks and give deployers a statement of uses and risks plus documentation on training data, bias testing and monitoring; deployers must monitor the systems and take reasonable steps to mitigate bias. Signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 857); effective January 1, 2027.

Consumer Protection - Artificial Intelligence - Behavioral Health Care Prohibitions

Maryland's HB 883 (2026, third reader text) would have barred developers of AI offered to Maryland consumers from representing that the AI is a behavioral health care provider or can provide behavioral health care, and from offering AI specifically programmed or designed to provide a service that would be behavioral health care if a provider delivered it. A violation would be an unfair, abusive or deceptive trade practice under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. It passed the House 110-23 and was referred to Senate Finance, with a hearing set for April 1, 2026, but no further action is recorded and it died when the 2026 session ended.

Health Insurance - Use of Artificial Intelligence - Human Evaluation

Maryland's HB 1385 (2026, first reader text) would have amended Insurance section 15-10B-05.1 so that audits and compliance reviews of AI, algorithms or software tools used by carriers for utilization review include a human evaluation of the patient's medical records by a licensed health care professional who can question, modify or override the tool's determination, and quarterly performance reviews include a human evaluation of real-world health outcomes. It had a House Health hearing set for March 12, 2026 and died when the 2026 session ended.

An act relating to regulating the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of mental health services

Vermont's H.644 (2026) would have barred anyone from offering, providing or advertising mental health services in Vermont that use AI in whole or in part, and barred mental health professionals from using AI for therapeutic decisions or communications, treatment plans, or detecting emotions. AI could be used for administrative support and, with written notice and consent, transcription. Violations of the ban would have been Consumer Protection Act violations carrying a $10,000 civil penalty each. Referred to House Health Care January 13, 2026; died. Senate companion S.241 also died.

An act relating to regulating the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of mental health services

Vermont's S.241 (2026) would have barred anyone from offering, providing or advertising mental health services in Vermont that use AI in whole or in part, and barred mental health professionals from using AI for therapeutic decisions or communications, treatment plans, or detecting emotions. AI could be used for administrative support and, with written notice and consent, transcription. Violations of the ban would have been Consumer Protection Act violations carrying a $10,000 civil penalty each. Referred to Senate Health and Welfare January 13, 2026; died. A House companion, H.644, also died.

Artificial intelligence; use of systems for student instruction.

Virginia's SB 394 adds Code § 22.1-20.2:1. The Department of Education, consulting school divisions and stakeholders, must compile how public schools use AI for instruction and post guidance for its safe, ethical and equitable use. The guidance covers student data privacy (FERPA, COPPA), teacher training, transparency, data agreements that bar using student or division data to train outside AI models, and bias, and must ensure approved AI uses give teachers access to transcripts of students' AI interactions. School boards must adopt policies following it. If funded, the Department runs an AI pilot program; that authority expires July 1, 2030. Identical to HB 1186; effective July 1, 2026.

Artificial intelligence; requiring informed consent for use by licensed mental health professional or health care provider; authorizing and prohibiting certain uses. Emergency.

Oklahoma's SB 2037 (2026), as introduced, would have required a licensed mental health professional to inform a patient in writing and get consent before using AI for supplementary support in recorded or transcribed therapy sessions, allowed AI for administrative or supplementary support if the professional stays responsible, and barred professionals from letting AI make independent therapeutic decisions. It was referred to a Senate committee February 3, 2026 and died when the session ended May 14, 2026.

Establishes regulations regarding the use of artificial intelligence in mental health care treatments.

Rhode Island H 7349 Substitute A (2026), enacted as Chapter 373, the Oversight of Artificial Intelligence Technology in Mental Health Care Act, adds chapter 40.1-5.5. Providers may use AI only for administrative or supplementary support, may not let AI make independent therapeutic decisions or determine treatment plans, and need written patient consent for certain AI use. Only licensed professionals may offer therapy to the public. Enacted June 22, 2026; effective upon passage.

Creates the Louisiana Artificial Intelligence Insurance Fairness Act (OR +$1,029,533 SG EX See Note)

Louisiana's HB880, the Louisiana Artificial Intelligence Insurance Fairness Act, would have regulated insurers that use algorithmic decision systems in homeowners, commercial property and casualty, auto, health or life insurance: annual independent disparate-impact audits, prohibited variables, human review of claims decisions, AI disclosures, and a right to explanation. Penalties would run up to $250,000 per violation and consumers could sue. It was considered in House Insurance April 23, 2026 and died.

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8, Chapter 27; Title 56 and Title 71, relative to health insurance.

Tennessee's HB1866 (114th General Assembly), the "Regulate Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Health Care Act," would have barred, on or after July 1, 2026, a health insurance issuer that uses AI, an algorithm or other software tool for utilization review or management based in whole or in part on medical necessity from denying, delaying or modifying care on medical necessity grounds unless a licensed healthcare professional or provider reviews the prior authorization request. Companion: SB 2010. Not passed before the session ended in April 2026; last action: Taken off notice for cal in s/c Insurance Subcommittee of Insurance Committee (March 11, 2026).

Relating To Artificial Intelligence.

Hawaii's SB 2585 (2026) would have required the Department of Health, with other agencies, to establish an AI-enhanced online clearinghouse of evidence-based treatment and prevention programs, use AI to classify programs by evidence level and cultural responsiveness, and have any AI model regularly audited for transparency, fairness and bias mitigation. The appropriation amount was blank. It was referred to committees January 28, 2026 and died.

Relating To The Patients' Bill Of Rights.

Hawaii's Senate Bill 3027 (2026), which calls itself the Hawaii Patients' Bill of Rights of 2025, would have set prior authorization deadlines for health carriers (one business day urgent, three non-urgent) and required written disclosure of any automated decision support tool used in utilization review. A board-certified clinician would have had to independently approve any adverse action the tool materially contributed to. It was referred to committee January 30, 2026 and not enacted. It would have taken effect July 1, 2026.

State Emergency Medical Services Board - Public Access Automated External Defibrillator Program - Revisions

HB276 revises the Public Access Automated External Defibrillator Program by establishing AED coordinator requirements, repealing regional council AED committees, and exempting AEDs in certain law enforcement patrol vehicles. It also sets certification qualifications for grocery stores and restaurants.

Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act of 2025

The AI Civil Rights Act would bar companies from developing or using AI-driven 'covered algorithms' in decisions about jobs, education, housing, utilities, health care, credit, insurance, criminal justice, elections, government benefits or public accommodations in a way that causes a disparate impact or otherwise discriminates based on a protected characteristic. Where harm is plausible, an independent auditor must evaluate the algorithm before deployment, and deployers must assess impacts every year, with summaries made public. The FTC would set rules for human alternatives and appeals. Enforced by the FTC, state attorneys general and private lawsuits. Introduced December 2, 2025.

Artificial intelligence; age verification systems required for chatbots, safeguard protocols required, therapy chatbot requirements established, private right of action and enforcement provided for

Alabama's HB 324, as introduced, would require AI chatbot deployers to verify the age of every user, keep chatbots with human-like features away from minors (under 19) or offer minors a version without them, adopt protocols for users who express intent to harm themselves or others, and limit the data they collect and store. It would allow licensed psychiatrists to prescribe qualifying therapeutic chatbots to minors, with a private right of action and Attorney General enforcement. Referred to House Judiciary January 22, 2026; the bill died when the 2026 regular session ended without final passage.

Rural health care; Alabama Health Command established to designate an AI-assisted health platform in rural communities

Alabama's SB 97 would create the Alabama Health Command, an independent agency under a director appointed by the Governor, to designate an Alabama-headquartered business to develop a uniform virtual AI-assisted health platform for rural communities. The platform would give consumers health management services such as education, scheduling and navigation to rural providers, without diagnosis or treatment. Rural providers that contract to use it would be exempt from competitive bid laws. Referred to Senate Healthcare on January 13, 2026; the bill died when the 2026 regular session ended without final passage.

An Act Prohibiting The Disclosure Of The Residential Address Of Public School Employees Under The Freedom Of Information Act And Establishing A Task Force Concerning Mass Requests Under The Act.

Connecticut's SB 325 (2026), in the committee substitute text (File No. 292), would add school employees to the list of public employees whose residential addresses a public agency may not disclose from personnel, medical or similar files under the Freedom of Information Act (effective October 1, 2026), and would establish a task force to study individuals using artificial intelligence to develop mass FOIA requests. It passed the Senate on April 22, 2026, and died when the 2026 session ended May 6, 2026.

Health Insurance - Utilization Review - Use of Artificial Intelligence

Maryland HB 820 (2025) governs health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers and private review agents that use AI, algorithms or other software tools in utilization review. Tools must base determinations on the enrollee's own medical or clinical history and circumstances rather than solely on group data, may not replace the provider's role or discriminate unfairly, must be open to audit by the Insurance Commissioner, described in written policies and reviewed quarterly, and may not deny, delay or modify health care services. Carriers' quarterly reports must say whether AI was used in each adverse decision. Effective October 1, 2025.

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 33; Title 47 and Title 63, relative to mental health.

Tennessee's HB 1470 was enacted as its Senate companion, SB 1580 (Public Chapter 647): the House substituted SB 1580 for HB 1470 on March 16, 2026. The law adds Tenn. Code § 33-1-205: a person who develops or deploys an artificial intelligence system may not advertise or represent to the public that the system is, or is able to act as, a qualified mental health professional. A violation is an unfair or deceptive act under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, subject to its penalties and remedies, and carries a civil penalty of $5,000 per violation. Signed April 1, 2026 (Public Chapter 647); effective July 1, 2026.

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should halt the pilot program and should not jeopardize seniors' access to critical health care by utilizing artificial intelligence to determine Medicare coverage.

The federal H.Res. 694 is a simple House resolution that would express the sense of the House that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services "should not utilize artificial intelligence to determine whether patients' procedures will be covered by Medicare." It recites CMS's June 27, 2025 announcement of a pilot using for-profit contractors and "enhanced technologies" such as AI. It would not change the law or bind CMS. Introduced September 10, 2025 and referred to the House Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees; no further action.