HOUSTON
Volume 15 | Issue 3
Inside This Issue
Why Are my Hands Numb? See pg. 9
INDEX Oncology Research......... pg.3 Mental Health ..................... pg.5 Healthy Heart....................... pg.6 The Framework.................... pg.8 Financial Forecast............ pg.12
The Key Signs and Symptoms of Arthritis See pg. 10
March Edition 2025
AI in Behavioral Health: Regulation or De-Regulation in 2025?
By Jean Marie R. Pechette, J.D. Joelle M. Wilson, J.D. Polsinelli, PC
A
rtificial intelligence (AI) continues to evolve as a transformative force in health care delivery, and particularly in the field of behavioral health, from clinical decision support to patient engagement tools and personalized treatment pla n s. However, wit h innovation comes a complex regulatory landscape. Federal Regulatory Landscape: The Behavioral Health Context. There is currently no binding federal law that regulates the development and use of AI. The unique challenges of AI in behavioral health — such as trust in AI technology, patient privacy, equitable access, need for transparency, and therapeutic efficacy — highlight critical gaps in the regulatory framework. In behavioral health, these federal priorities could accelerate the adoption of AI tools aimed at improving patient outcomes. Insights from the Congressional Research Service. While we do not anticipate federal legislation with regard to AI in the immediate future, there is consensus that AI needs to be developed and deployed safely. To that end, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently issued a report on AI in Healthcare which identified the following areas of concern, including those particularly relevant for behavioral health providers:
Transparency and Accountability. There is a growing push to ensure AI systems used in clinical settings are explainable and their decision-making processes transparent. • Data Privacy and Security. Developers and providers should expect heightened scrutiny around privacy standards. • Bias and Equity. AI tools may inadvertently perpetuate or amplify biases due to biased data or algorithmic design. Regulators are increasingly focused on ensuring AI systems are equitable and clinically validated across diverse demographics. • Liability and Accountability. Legal uncertainty surrounding liability when AI tools cause harm or errors may continue to foster reluctance to adopt such technologies. While the CRS highlights challenges with the use of AI in health care settings and provides Congress with policy recommendations, we anticipate that federal action will continue to primarily come through agency guidance, reports, and requests for information rather than sweeping legislative or regulatory changes. •
State-Level Developments: Behavioral Health in Focus. While federal regulation lags, states are taking the lead in AI regulation – though with varying levels of activity and focus. Several states are introducing or have passed legislation to regulate the development, deployment, and use of AI tools. These bills often include provisions for transparency, data privacy, algorithmic accountability, and consumer protection. In the behavioral health space, state laws could create compliance hurdles for providers utilizing AI-driven solutions. For instance, a California bill imposes significant disclosure requirements on any health facility, clinic, physician’s office or other group practice utilizing generative AI for clinical-based communications and Colorado recently passed a bill which requires developers and deployers of certain AI tools to use reasonable care to protect consumers from known or foreseeable risks related to algorithmic discrimination. These developments highlight the broader trend of integrating AI into health care while addressing key concerns see AI ...page 14
PRSRT STD US POSTAGE PAID PERMIT NO 1 HOUSTON TX