AN ACT TO CREATE THE MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL JUDGMENT PROTECTION ACT; TO STATE LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS; TO DEFINE TERMS; TO REQUIRE PROVIDERS OR FACILITIES USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE THAT MATERIALLY CONTRIBUTES TO A DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT PLAN, PROBLEM LIST ENTRY, ORDER OR CLINICAL NOTE TO DISCLOSE SUCH USE IN THE MEDICAL RECORD; TO REQUIRE A LICENSED CLINICIAN TO REVIEW AND APPROVE ANY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE OUTPUT USED FOR SUCH PURPOSES; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN NOTICE REQUIREMENTS; TO REQUIRE THE MAINTENANCE OF TAMPER-RESISTANT AUDIT LOGS CAPTURING THE IDENTITY OF THE REVIEWING CLINICIAN; TO PROHIBIT AUTOMATED DENIAL OR DELAY OF COVERAGE OR PAYMENT FOR MEDICAL SERVICES; TO REQUIRE PAYERS TO SUBMIT ANNUAL REPORTS ON USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE; TO AUTHORIZE LICENSING AUTHORITIES, THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, AND THE DIVISION OF MEDICAID TO ENFORCE THIS ACT; TO AUTHORIZE DELAYED ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS AND PROVIDE SAFE HARBORS FOR PROVIDERS, FACILITIES AND PAYERS IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ACT; TO AMEND SECTIONS 73-9-61, 73-15-29, 73-21-97, 73-21-163, 73-25-29, 73-26-5, 73-27-13, 73-31-21, 73-43-11, 83-5-917 AND 83-5-933, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; TO BRING FORWARD SECTION 25-53-301, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, FOR THE PURPOSE OF POSSIBLE AMENDMENT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
The legislation aims to address the growing application of AI in healthcare by establishing clear guidelines on its functionality. By requiring that AI outputs are treated as advisory only and mandating human review before any clinical decision can be made, the act is designed to safeguard against over-reliance on technology that may lead to inaccurate medical decisions. Additionally, it provides for the maintenance of tamper-resistant audit logs to ensure transparency in the clinician's review process and enhances healthcare providers’ accountability.
House Bill 1717, known as the Mississippi Medical Judgment Protection Act, seeks to regulate the use of artificial intelligence (AI) within clinical and payer settings to promote patient safety and ensure professional judgment is not undermined. The act mandates that any use of AI in medical diagnoses, treatment plans, or clinical notes must be disclosed in the medical records. Moreover, it requires a licensed clinician to review and give final approval to any AI-generated outputs to maintain a higher standard of care and accountability in medical practice.
Despite its protective measures, HB1717 has sparked debates among stakeholders. Proponents, including healthcare professionals and legal experts, argue that the bill is necessary to mitigate risks associated with AI, such as patient harm due to erroneous automated decisions. Conversely, critics suggest that the regulatory requirements could hinder innovation in healthcare technology and lead to increased administrative burdens for providers. They fear that the act’s strict oversight might slow down the adoption of beneficial AI applications in clinical settings.
To ensure compliance, the act grants enforcement authority to various regulatory bodies, including the Department of Insurance and the Division of Medicaid. It empowers these entities to impose fines and corrective actions against violations, fostering an environment where both payers and providers are held accountable for their use of AI in clinical contexts. This oversight mechanism is crucial in instilling confidence that patient safety remains a top priority in the evolving landscape of healthcare technology.