Illinois Lawmakers Push for AI Regulation in Health Care
Table of Contents
- 1. Illinois Lawmakers Push for AI Regulation in Health Care
- 2. HB1806: Regulating AI in Online Mental Health Services
- 3. HB35: Ensuring Human Oversight in Insurance Decisions
- 4. Background: AI and Insurance Denials
- 5. Stakeholder Perspectives
- 6. the Path Forward: Striking a Balance
- 7. What safeguards should be in place to ensure that AI in healthcare prioritizes patient well-being and avoids potential biases?
- 8. AI Regulation in Healthcare: An Interview with Dr. Anya Sharma
- 9. The Push for AI Oversight in Illinois Healthcare
- 10. AI in Mental Health: Ethical Considerations
- 11. Human Oversight of AI in Insurance Decisions
- 12. Balancing Innovation and Patient Protection
- 13. Stakeholder Perspectives: Complexities of Regulation
- 14. The Future of AI in healthcare: Your Thoughts?
Illinois is taking steps to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in health care, with lawmakers voicing concerns over unchecked automation impacting patient access and treatment decisions. Two key bills are under consideration,aiming to introduce safeguards in online therapy and health insurance coverage determinations.
HB1806: Regulating AI in Online Mental Health Services
House Bill 1806 focuses on the use of AI in online mental health services. This bill passed unanimously out of the House Health Care Licensing Committee. If enacted, the measure would prohibit licensed mental health professionals from using AI to assist in providing support in therapy or psychotherapy sessions.
Rep. Bob Morgan, the bill’s sponsor, highlighted the potential dangers, stating, “The introduction of AI into mental health care presents, I think, pretty obvious but certainly serious risks that can lead to dangerous, even life-threatening consequences.” He emphasized that “AI does not have the ability to exercise ethical judgment or recognize when a person is in crisis, or adapt responses based on non-verbal cues and emotional tone — all the things that we’re training our health care professionals to identify.”
The National Association of Social workers has reportedly received complaints from users who were unaware they were interacting with AI chatbots during their therapy sessions, raising ethical questions about openness and patient consent.
HB35: Ensuring Human Oversight in Insurance Decisions
house Bill 35 addresses the use of AI in health insurance coverage decisions. The bill seeks to ensure that AI-driven decisions are “meaningfully reviewed” by a human employee with the authority to override the AI’s determination.
Morgan emphasized the need for this oversight, stating, “Artificial intelligence is here, whether we like it or not. When it comes to health insurance, the stakes are simply too high to allow unchecked automation to dictate decisions that could determine whether someone receives life-saving treatment or faces financial ruin.”
The bill’s goal is “preventing inappropriate adverse determinations” against consumers, ensuring that AI is not solely relied upon to deny, reduce, or terminate coverage.
According to Morgan, “As we sit here today, insurance providers are using AI to decide what is going to be our health insurance claims. We are completely blind to what that could be and how this could be used against us and against our claims.”
Background: AI and Insurance Denials
The push for regulation comes amid growing scrutiny of AI’s role in insurance denials. Late last year, an examination by ProPublica revealed that the AI algorithm used by EviCore, a company utilized by major insurance providers, has high denial rates.
Morgan noted that “We have already seen large,nationwide insurance providers face class action lawsuits for relying on AI algorithms to deny life-saving care,” referencing lawsuits against companies like Cigna,Humana,and UnitedHealth Group.
In February 2025, a decision was reached in a 2023 lawsuit against UnitedHealth Group, with five of seven counts being dismissed. Such legal challenges underscore the ongoing debate about the ethics and fairness of AI in health care administration.
Stakeholder Perspectives
HB35 faces opposition from groups like the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, American Health Insurance Professionals, and the ACLU of Illinois. Conversely,it garners support from organizations including the Illinois State Medical Society,Illinois Pharmacists Association,and the Illinois Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers.
This division highlights the complexities of regulating AI in a rapidly evolving landscape, balancing innovation with the need to protect patient rights and ensure equitable access to care.
the Path Forward: Striking a Balance
The Illinois legislation reflects a broader national conversation about the ethical implications of AI in health care. As AI becomes more integrated into medical decision-making, it is crucial to establish clear guidelines and safeguards to prevent misuse and ensure that technology serves the best interests of patients.
Morgan concludes, “By ensuring that human review is required for AI-driven decisions that negatively impact patients, we are upholding fairness, accountability, and consumer protection in a system that affects millions of lives. This is not about rejecting innovation — it’s about making sure technology serves peopel, not the other way around.”
Takeaway: Stay informed about the evolving role of AI in health care and advocate for regulations that prioritize patient well-being and ethical practices. Contact your local representatives to voice your support for responsible AI oversight in the healthcare industry.
What safeguards should be in place to ensure that AI in healthcare prioritizes patient well-being and avoids potential biases?
AI Regulation in Healthcare: An Interview with Dr. Anya Sharma
Illinois is at the forefront of a national conversation about AI in healthcare. We sat down with Dr. Anya Sharma, a bioethicist specializing in the intersection of technology and patient care, to discuss the proposed legislation and its potential impact.
The Push for AI Oversight in Illinois Healthcare
Archyde: Dr. Sharma, Illinois lawmakers are considering bills to regulate AI in mental health services and insurance decisions. What’s your initial reaction to these proposals?
Dr.Sharma: I think it’s a necessary step. The rapid integration of artificial intelligence into healthcare demands careful consideration. We need to proactively address potential risks to patient well-being and ensure equitable access to care.
AI in Mental Health: Ethical Considerations
Archyde: House Bill 1806 aims to prevent AI from being used in therapy sessions by licensed mental health professionals. What are the core ethical concerns driving this bill?
Dr. Sharma: The key issues are patient consent, the lack of emotional intelligence in AI, and the potential for misdiagnosis or inappropriate treatment. AI chatbots may not be able to recognize a person in crisis or adapt to non-verbal cues, which are crucial aspects of effective therapy. The ethical implications of using AI in online mental health services cannot be overlooked.
Human Oversight of AI in Insurance Decisions
Archyde: House Bill 35 focuses on ensuring human review of AI-driven health insurance coverage decisions. why is this oversight so critical?
Dr. Sharma: The stakes are incredibly high. AI algorithms can deny life-saving treatments or lead to financial ruin if not properly monitored. This bill aims to prevent inappropriate adverse determinations and ensure accountability when coverage is denied, reduced, or terminated. Ultimately, it protects consumers from the potential biases and errors inherent in AI systems when making health insurance decisions.
Balancing Innovation and Patient Protection
Archyde: How do you strike a balance between fostering innovation in AI and safeguarding patient rights and ethical practices?
Dr. Sharma: That’s the million-dollar question.We need a regulatory framework that encourages responsible innovation. This includes clarity about how AI systems are used, ongoing monitoring of their performance, and a clear appeals process for patients who are negatively impacted. Regulation is not about stifling progress; it’s about ensuring that AI serves humanity in a safe and ethical way. This is about preventing inappropriate adverse determinations against consumers.
Stakeholder Perspectives: Complexities of Regulation
Archyde: There are diverse viewpoints on HB35, with opposition from business groups but a lot of push from medical societies. How do views from stakeholders reflect broader difficulties of regulating AI?
Dr. Sharma: This is a prime example of competing interests and values. Industries and commerce often prioritize efficiency and cost-effectiveness, while medical professionals generally are going to prioritize patient outcomes and ethical consderations. This divergence highlights the tricky tightrope walk when creating regulations – ensuring the business can succeed while patients rights are also protected.
The Future of AI in healthcare: Your Thoughts?
Archyde: Looking ahead, what key considerations should guide the development and implementation of AI in healthcare to instill confidence in patients?
Dr. Sharma: Patient trust is paramount. We need to build systems that are obvious, explainable, and accountable. Educating both healthcare professionals and patients about the capabilities and limitations of AI is essential. Furthermore, ongoing research into the ethical and social implications of AI in healthcare is crucial. What role do you believe AI should play in healthcare, and what safeguards are most vital to you? please share your thoughts in the comments below.
