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.
HB1816 would add a new section to Arkansas law restricting the use of artificial intelligence by healthcare providers and healthcare insurers. The bill defines artificial intelligence, healthcare provider, healthcare insurer, health benefit plan, and quality assurance laboratory, and then bars providers and insurers from using AI in the delivery of healthcare services or in generating medical records unless the AI has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and verified by a quality assurance laboratory.
The bill applies broadly to licensed healthcare providers and insurers issuing health benefit plans in Arkansas, including plans tied to state-funded programs such as Medicaid and Arkansas Health and Opportunity for Me, while excluding several categories such as dental-only, vision-only, workers’ compensation, accident-only, and long-term-care-only coverage. It would therefore create a new compliance standard for the healthcare and insurance sectors and could affect how clinical documentation, decision support, and administrative recordkeeping are handled in the state.
If enacted, HB1816 would amend Arkansas Code Title 17, Chapter 80 by creating a new statutory restriction on AI use in healthcare delivery and medical record generation. It would impose a condition that AI tools be both FDA-approved and verified by a quality assurance laboratory before use by covered providers and insurers, thereby adding a state-law gatekeeping requirement on top of existing professional, insurance, and healthcare regulations. The practical effect would be to limit or delay deployment of AI systems in clinical and insurance workflows and to expose covered entities to compliance obligations tied to AI approval and verification.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears precautionary and restrictive, reflecting concern about the safety, reliability, and oversight of AI in healthcare. The absence of voting history makes it impossible to assess whether the bill had bipartisan support, opposition from industry groups, or concerns from healthcare stakeholders.
The main point of contention is likely to be the bill’s broad restriction on AI use and the requirement that systems be both FDA-approved and verified by a quality assurance laboratory before use. Supporters would likely emphasize patient safety, accuracy, and accountability in medical records and care delivery, while opponents may argue that the bill is too restrictive, could slow innovation, and may be difficult to implement because many healthcare AI tools are not individually FDA-approved. Another likely issue is the scope of the bill’s application to Medicaid and other state-supported health programs, which could raise concerns about administrative burden and access to efficient care tools.