A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 54.1-2400.1:1, relating to use of artificial intelligence system by mental health service providers; civil penalty.
HB668 would add a new section to the Virginia Code regulating how mental health service providers may use artificial intelligence systems. The bill defines key terms such as “artificial intelligence system,” “mental health service provider,” “administrative support,” “peer support,” “religious counseling,” and “therapeutic communication,” and it distinguishes between nonclinical support functions and direct therapeutic interactions. Based on the text provided, the measure is aimed at preventing AI from being used in ways that substitute for or intrude into clinical mental health care, while still allowing limited back-office or logistical uses.
The bill’s structure suggests it would create a compliance framework for providers by drawing a line between permissible administrative uses of AI and prohibited or restricted therapeutic uses. It also establishes a civil penalty mechanism, indicating that violations could expose providers to enforcement consequences under state law. Because the text excerpt ends partway through the operative provisions, the full scope of the restrictions is not visible here, but the bill clearly targets AI use in mental health service delivery and would likely affect licensed providers, clinics, and related behavioral health practices.
HB668 would amend the Code of Virginia by adding § 54.1-2400.1:1, creating a new statutory rule governing artificial intelligence use by mental health service providers. It would affect the regulatory obligations of providers covered by § 54.1-2400.1, likely limiting AI in therapeutic communication while permitting certain administrative support functions such as scheduling, billing, and general logistics. The bill also contemplates civil penalties, which would give the state an enforcement tool against improper AI use in mental health services.
The available context shows no recorded committee transcript, vote tally, or floor debate, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the materials provided. The bill was left in the House Committee on Communications, Technology and Innovation, which indicates it did not advance out of committee at this stage. Based on the subject matter, the bill appears to reflect a cautious or protective approach toward AI in sensitive health-care settings, but the public or legislative sentiment cannot be determined from the provided record.
The main likely point of contention is whether AI should be allowed in any part of mental health care beyond basic administrative tasks. Supporters would likely favor clear limits to protect patients, preserve clinical judgment, and prevent AI from being used as a substitute for licensed therapeutic care. Opponents or skeptics may argue that the bill could be overly restrictive, difficult to enforce, or could limit beneficial uses of AI for efficiency, access, and support services. The definitions of “therapeutic communication,” “peer support,” and “religious counseling” may also raise questions about where the line is drawn between regulated mental health treatment and other forms of support or counseling.