The Doctors Not AI Act of 2026 is a bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on September 1, 2026 by Representative Greg Landsman (D-OH-1), with Representatives Buddy Carter (R-Ga.), Kim Schrier (D-Wash.) and Tom Barrett (R-Mich.). It would bar an artificial intelligence system from issuing or dictating an adverse health-plan benefit determination that involves clinical judgment, and would require such determinations to be made by a licensed health care professional exercising independent judgment (H.R. 10210 — Doctors Not AI Act of 2026, as introduced).
Status and timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 1, 2026 | Introduced; referred to House Energy and Commerce, and additionally to Ways and Means and to Education and Workforce |
The bill has not been reported from committee. Its policy area on Congress.gov is Health.
Scope and definitions
The regulated event is an adverse benefit determination involving clinical judgment, whether made initially or on internal appeal. Approvals fall outside the bill.
"Adverse benefit determination involving clinical judgment" is defined as one based in whole or in part on medical necessity, appropriateness, experimental or investigational exclusions, level of care, health care setting, effectiveness, clinical guidelines, utilization review criteria, other standards requiring evaluation of the enrollee's medical condition or treatment needs, or generally accepted standards of care.
"Artificial intelligence system" is defined identically in all three amended statutes as an engineered or machine-based system — including any algorithm, predictive model, machine learning system or automated decision-making software — that processes data to generate predictions, classifications, recommendations or decisions and is used to materially influence, automate or issue coverage determinations. The definition turns on function and use rather than on any technical threshold, and so reaches rule-based scoring tools as well as trained models; compare the definitional approaches collected at Automated Decision-Making Technology (ADMT).
Structure
The bill amends three statutes in parallel so the same duty reaches insured coverage, self-funded employer plans and the tax-code enforcement channel:
| Statute | New provision |
|---|---|
| Public Health Service Act, title XXVII | New § 2719B; definition added to § 2791; parity amendments to § 2726 |
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 | New § 503 paragraph (3); definition added to § 3; parity amendments to § 712 |
| Internal Revenue Code of 1986, chapter 100 | New § 9815A; definition added to § 9832; parity amendments to § 9812 |
Key provisions
A plan or issuer must ensure that a covered determination is not issued by an AI system and is not dictated or determined by such a system's output; is made only by a licensed health care professional acting within the scope of the licence and with training and experience in the item or service at issue; and reflects that professional's independent clinical judgment. The independent-judgment clause is the operative limit on assisted review: the professional must conduct an independent evaluation of the individual's medical circumstances and "shall not treat any output of an artificial intelligence system as presumptively valid or defer to such output in lieu of independent clinical judgment applying generally accepted standards of care" (H.R. 10210 — Doctors Not AI Act of 2026, as introduced).
Where an AI system was used, the denial notice must state that fact, describe the system's role in the review process, and name the professional who made the determination together with that professional's licence and credentials. The administrative record must document the system used, its role, any outputs, scores, recommendations or determinations it generated, and compliance with the independent-judgment requirement; those materials are available to the enrollee on request.
Mental-health parity
The bill folds AI-assisted utilization review into the existing mental-health parity regime rather than creating a separate enforcement track. Each of the three parity provisions gains a clause requiring a plan to disclose whether an AI system is used in, or materially influences, the design, development, application or administration of a non-quantitative treatment limitation, together with enough information about the system's function, operation and effects for the Secretary to compare its application to mental health and substance use disorder benefits against medical and surgical benefits, as written and in operation. Each also gains a subsection providing that the use of an AI system in connection with utilization review is itself a treatment limitation for parity purposes.
Effective date
The amendments would apply to plan years beginning on or after January 1 of the first calendar year beginning not less than 12 months after enactment.
Relationships
- related: Healthcare — AI Deployment; Insurance — AI Deployment — the regulated activity.
- related: Automated Decision-Making Technology (ADMT) — the definitional family.
- related: AI Liability — the bill locates responsibility in a named licensed professional.
- anchor-sources: H.R. 10210 — Doctors Not AI Act of 2026, as introduced.