WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 883

Consumer Protection - Artificial Intelligence - Behavioral Health Care Prohibitions

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Adrian Boafo and 11 co-sponsors

Maryland bill HB 883 restricts artificial intelligence use in behavioral health care to protect patients from algorithmic risks in mental health and substance abuse treatment.

Third Reading Passed (108-25)
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 883

Legislative bill overview

HB 883 establishes consumer protection restrictions on the use of artificial intelligence in behavioral health care settings in Maryland. The bill prohibits certain AI applications in mental health and substance abuse treatment contexts, likely focusing on autonomous decision-making, treatment recommendations, or patient data handling without appropriate human oversight. It aims to protect vulnerable populations receiving mental health services from potential harms associated with unregulated AI deployment.

Why is this important

Behavioral health care involves sensitive personal information and critical treatment decisions that significantly impact patient outcomes and autonomy. As AI adoption accelerates in healthcare, safeguards are needed to prevent algorithmic bias, inappropriate automation of clinical judgments, or privacy violations in mental health treatment. This legislation addresses a gap where AI use in behavioral health may outpace regulatory frameworks designed to protect patients.

Potential points of contention

  • Definitional clarity: The bill's specific prohibitions on AI use remain unclear without full text; overly broad restrictions could limit beneficial AI applications like scheduling or administrative tasks, while narrow definitions might miss genuine risks
  • Healthcare provider burden: Implementation costs and compliance complexity for mental health practitioners, particularly small practices, could strain already resource-limited behavioral health sectors
  • Interstate and competitive concerns: Maryland-specific restrictions might disadvantage in-state providers against out-of-state telehealth competitors operating under different regulatory regimes, or create compliance challenges for multi-state healthcare systems

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.