Artificial Intelligence - Health Software and Health Insurance Decision Making
Summary
SB987 would create a new regulatory framework for artificial intelligence health software in Maryland and place limits on how health insurers use artificial intelligence in coverage and care-related decisions. The bill requires the Maryland Health Care Commission to maintain a registry of AI health software that may be distributed or operated in the state, and it bars a person from distributing or operating such software unless it is registered with the Commission. The Commission would also be required to adopt regulations defining AI health software, specifying what information must be collected for the registry, and setting a deadline after which fines could be imposed for noncompliance.
The bill also adds a separate insurance provision prohibiting carriers from using artificial intelligence to decide or directly influence a health care decision, or a decision directly related to health care. At the same time, it makes clear that carriers may still use AI for tasks or decisions unrelated to health care. The bill incorporates the existing state definition of artificial intelligence from the State Finance and Procurement Article and takes effect October 1, 2025.
Impact
SB987 would amend the Health – General and Insurance Articles of the Maryland Code, while also cross-referencing the state’s existing statutory definition of artificial intelligence. It would give the Maryland Health Care Commission new oversight authority over AI health software through a registration regime and enforcement power, including civil fines of up to $10,000 per day for distributing or operating unregistered software. It would also impose a new restriction on health insurance carriers, limiting the use of AI in health care decision-making and related determinations, while preserving non-health-care uses of AI.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a precautionary approach to AI in health care, emphasizing oversight, transparency, and limits on automated decision-making in insurance. The absence of recorded legislative discussion makes it difficult to assess the level of consensus or controversy.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are likely to be the registration requirement for AI health software and the broad prohibition on carriers using AI to decide or directly influence health care decisions. Supporters may view these provisions as necessary consumer protections and safeguards against opaque automated decision-making, while critics may argue the bill could burden innovation, create compliance costs, or make it harder for insurers and software developers to use AI tools in clinical or administrative settings. The bill also leaves important terms to be defined by regulation, which could become a source of dispute over scope and enforcement.