Health Occupations - Behavioral Health Care Providers - Use of Artificial Intelligence
HB0995 would regulate how licensed, registered, or certified behavioral health care providers in Maryland may use artificial intelligence. The bill generally prohibits AI from being used to provide behavioral health care directly to a patient, including for assessment, diagnosis, treatment, counseling, treatment planning, case management, and therapeutic communications. It defines “therapeutic communication” broadly to cover direct clinical interactions, emotional support, guidance, collaboration on treatment goals, and behavioral feedback intended to address mental health conditions.
The bill allows AI systems to be used for administrative support tasks such as scheduling, records and billing management, data analysis for operational purposes, and organizing session notes, but only if the provider complies with confidentiality and health-record security laws, signs an agreement preventing the AI vendor from using accessed information to train AI models, and gives patients written and verbal notice about the AI use and its risks. If AI is used in ways that could materially affect clinical decision-making or patient-facing services, the provider must obtain written informed consent. Providers must also independently review the accuracy of AI-generated reports or summaries, and violations would be subject to discipline by the relevant health occupation board.
HB0995 would add a new section to the Health Occupations Article, creating a specific regulatory framework for AI use by behavioral health care providers. It would affect licensed mental health professionals and related providers by limiting AI in clinical care, imposing notice and consent requirements, and creating enforceable professional discipline for violations. It also would establish privacy, confidentiality, and vendor-contract requirements for administrative AI tools, while expressly preserving the ability to distribute self-help or educational materials that do not claim to provide behavioral health care.
The available record suggests the bill was introduced as a precautionary consumer-protection and professional-standards measure focused on privacy, clinical judgment, and patient safety. There is no committee transcript or recorded vote showing debate or opposition, and the bill was ultimately withdrawn by the sponsor in the House. That withdrawal indicates the measure did not advance, but the text itself reflects a cautious approach to AI in mental health care rather than an outright rejection of technology.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s broad prohibition on AI in therapeutic and clinical functions, the requirement for written informed consent when AI could materially affect care, and the restrictions on using patient information to train AI systems. Supporters would likely view these provisions as necessary to protect confidentiality, prevent overreliance on automated tools, and preserve human clinical judgment. Potential critics could argue that the bill is too restrictive, may limit useful clinical support tools, and could create compliance burdens for providers and vendors, especially around defining when AI materially affects patient-facing services.