Georgia Senate Bill SB444

Georgia 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/3/26
• Report Pass: 2/6/26
• Engrossed: 2/11/26
• Report Pass: 3/18/26
• Enrolled: 4/10/26
• Chaptered: 5/5/26
• Passed: 5/5/26

Caption

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

Summary

SB 444 amends Georgia’s laws governing private review agents and utilization review entities, which are the entities that review whether health insurance will cover certain healthcare services. The bill allows these entities to use artificial intelligence systems, artificial intelligence, and other software tools to automate tasks, reduce administrative burdens, and assist in decision-making, but it draws a clear limit: those tools cannot be the sole basis for an adverse coverage determination. Under the bill, before a patient can be denied coverage, a natural person who qualifies as a private review agent or utilization review entity must conduct the utilization review, and a clinical peer must participate in that review. The legislation also states that artificial intelligence and related tools may not supersede the judgment of the clinical peer. The bill defines both “artificial intelligence” and “artificial intelligence system” for purposes of this new section and takes effect on January 1, 2027.

Impact

The bill adds a new Code section to Chapter 46 of Title 33 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, directly affecting insurance utilization review practices in Georgia. It does not ban AI use in health insurance review, but it restricts how AI can be used in coverage decisions by requiring human review and clinical peer involvement before an adverse determination is issued. This will affect private review agents, utilization review entities, insurers, and patients seeking coverage for healthcare services, and it may require changes to review procedures, compliance policies, and vendor software use.

Sentiment

The available voting history shows strong bipartisan support and no recorded opposition: the Senate passed the bill 47-0, the House passed it 164-0, and the Senate later agreed to a House substitute 44-0. That voting pattern suggests broad agreement with the bill’s approach of permitting AI use while preserving human oversight in health coverage decisions. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no additional recorded debate to indicate significant resistance.

Contention

The main policy issue in SB 444 is the balance between efficiency and oversight. Supporters appear to favor allowing AI to streamline administrative work and assist review processes, while ensuring that final adverse coverage decisions are not made solely by automated systems. The likely point of contention, though not reflected in the votes, is whether the bill goes far enough in protecting patients from automated denials or whether it imposes too much restriction on insurers and review entities seeking to use AI for cost control and workflow management. The bill resolves that tension by requiring a human reviewer and clinical peer participation before denial.