Congress mandates human doctors, not AI, for insurance claim denials
H.R. 10210 — Doctors Not AI Act of 2026 · Filed by Greg Landsman (D-OH) · 3 cosponsors · Introduced Sep 1, 2026 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill prohibits health insurance plans and insurers from using AI systems to make or dictate decisions on whether to cover medical care when clinical judgment is required. Instead, a licensed healthcare professional must make those decisions independently, disclose if AI was used, and document their reasoning. The bill applies to group health plans, individual insurance, and requires the same AI transparency rules for mental health parity reviews.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is a direct restraint on insurers' use of automated decision-making in medically complex claims, paired with transparency and human-review mandates. It is a consumer protection measure, not a subsidy, tax change, or deregulation.
What the text implies
- Compliance costs for insurers to maintain dual-track review systems (AI-assisted for routine claims, human-only for clinical-judgment cases) may be passed to employers and employees through higher premiums.
- The definition of 'adverse benefit determination involving clinical judgment' is broad and covers utilization review, potentially requiring human review for many denials currently handled by algorithm, expanding insurer administrative burden.
The full analysis lists 4 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
healthcare providers (physicians, clinicians) — increased demand for human review labor; medical review organizations and utilization review companies — may expand to handle increased human; healthcare law firms — litigation over AI disclosure compliance and parity violations