A bill for an act relating to the licensure of artificial intelligence augmented and autonomous service providers, and including penalties.
HSB766 creates a new state licensing framework for “artificial intelligence augmented and autonomous service providers” (AAASPs), which are corporate or legal entities that operate clinical AI services. The bill establishes a new Board of Autonomous Medical Practice to license, regulate, investigate, and discipline these providers, and it creates multiple license classes and autonomy modifiers based on the type of AI service and the level of human oversight. It also defines key categories such as informational, advisory, supervised autonomous, and fully autonomous AI, and it sets out when licensure is required and when it is not.
The bill would allow certain AI systems to issue patient-specific clinical orders, including some medication, lab, and device orders, if the provider holds the appropriate autonomy modifier. It requires disclosures to patients for higher-autonomy services, imposes a professional duty of loyalty, bars advertising and commercial steering inside the clinical interface, and requires retention of immutable algorithmic logic snapshots for audit purposes. The bill also creates application requirements, including insurance, bonding, fingerprints, continuity plans, human-subjects review where applicable, and annual performance reporting tied to safety benchmarks.
HSB766 would add a new chapter to the Iowa Code governing AI-delivered clinical services and would also amend existing provisions to create and staff the new board. It would preempt other state licensing boards from imposing additional licensure or supervision requirements on licensed AAASPs acting within the chapter’s scope, while preserving regulation of individual human practitioners. The bill also affects insurance and Medicaid reimbursement rules by directing state agencies to create billing codes, coverage standards, and provider-network rules for licensed AAASPs, and it authorizes enforcement through cease-and-desist orders, injunctions, and civil penalties. In practice, the bill would expand the legal recognition of AI-based clinical services while tying that recognition to a detailed state oversight and compliance regime.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of floor or committee sentiment. Based on the bill text, the proposal appears generally supportive of regulated AI adoption in health care, because it creates a pathway for licensure, reimbursement, and limited autonomous practice rather than banning the technology. At the same time, the bill’s extensive safety, disclosure, audit, and benchmarking requirements suggest a strong emphasis on caution and patient protection.
The main points of contention likely concern how far AI systems should be allowed to function independently in clinical care, especially for critical or time-sensitive conditions and for issuing prescriptions or clinical orders. Another likely area of dispute is the bill’s preemption of other licensing boards and its limits on rules that could restrict market entry, which may be viewed as reducing traditional professional oversight. Stakeholders may also disagree over liability protections for provisional licensees, the use of state reimbursement for AI services, the handling of affiliate steering and commercial influence, and whether the bill’s framework is sufficiently protective of patients and human clinical judgment.