SF-2421
IA · State · USA
IA
USA
● Withdrawn
Effective Date
2027-01-01
Iowa Senate File 2421 — A bill for an act relating to utilization review organizations' use of artificial intelligence, prior authorization determinations and exemptions, and audits, and including applicability provisions.
Iowa SF 2421 regulates utilization review organizations' use of AI in prior authorization decisions and establishes peer review requirements for denials and downgrades. Division I prohibits UROs from using AI-based algorithms as the sole basis for denying, delaying, or downgrading prior authorization requests based on medical necessity, and requires that all denials or downgrades be made by a qualified reviewer (physician) or clinical peer practicing in the same or similar specialty as the requesting provider. The bill also requires written statements citing specific reasons for denials, written attestations of reviewer qualifications, and post-denial consultations. Divisions II and III exempt cancer-related screenings and life-threatening inpatient conditions from prior authorization requirements. Division IV establishes audit procedural timelines with automatic claim approval as a remedy for violations. The bill was withdrawn and never enacted.
Summary

Iowa SF 2421 regulates utilization review organizations' use of AI in prior authorization decisions and establishes peer review requirements for denials and downgrades. Division I prohibits UROs from using AI-based algorithms as the sole basis for denying, delaying, or downgrading prior authorization requests based on medical necessity, and requires that all denials or downgrades be made by a qualified reviewer (physician) or clinical peer practicing in the same or similar specialty as the requesting provider. The bill also requires written statements citing specific reasons for denials, written attestations of reviewer qualifications, and post-denial consultations. Divisions II and III exempt cancer-related screenings and life-threatening inpatient conditions from prior authorization requirements. Division IV establishes audit procedural timelines with automatic claim approval as a remedy for violations. The bill was withdrawn and never enacted.

Enforcement & Penalties
Enforcement Authority
Commissioner of Insurance has rulemaking authority to administer and enforce Division I (AI and peer review) and Division IV (audits). Director of Health and Human Services has mandatory rulemaking authority for Division II (cancer screening exemptions). No private right of action is created. Enforcement is agency-initiated through the Commissioner of Insurance's existing regulatory authority over health carriers and utilization review organizations.
Penalties
No monetary damages or civil penalties are specified in the bill. For Division IV (audits), if a health carrier or utilization review organization violates the audit provisions, the claim shall be automatically approved and promptly paid pursuant to section 507B.4A, subsection 2, including interest. This is an automatic claim approval remedy, not a damages provision.
Who Is Covered
Compliance Obligations 5 obligations · click obligation ID to open requirement page
HC-01 Healthcare AI Decision Restrictions · HC-01.1 · Deployer · Healthcare
Section 2 (new § 514F.8, subsection 2A)
Plain Language
Utilization review organizations may use AI-based algorithms for initial review of prior authorization requests. However, for requests based on medical necessity, AI may not serve as the sole basis for a decision to deny, delay, or downgrade the request. A human decision-maker must independently review and affirm any adverse determination — AI can inform but not solely drive the outcome. This is a permissive-use-with-restriction framework: AI is allowed for initial screening, but a human must make the final call on adverse medical necessity decisions.
Statutory Text
2A. A utilization review organization may use an artificial intelligence-based algorithm to provide an initial review of a request for prior authorization, except that, for a prior authorization request for a health care service based on medical necessity, a utilization review organization shall not use an artificial intelligence-based algorithm as the sole basis for the utilization review organization's decision to deny, delay, or downgrade the prior authorization request.
HC-01 Healthcare AI Decision Restrictions · HC-01.1HC-01.2 · Deployer · Healthcare
Section 3 (new § 514F.8A, subsections 2-3)
Plain Language
A utilization review organization may not deny or downgrade a prior authorization request unless: (1) the decision is made by a qualified reviewer (if the requesting provider is a physician) or a clinical peer (if not), both of whom must practice in the same or similar specialty and have relevant clinical expertise; (2) the URO provides the requesting provider a signed written statement citing specific reasons for the denial, a written explanation of the appeals process (also provided to the covered person), and a written attestation confirming the reviewer's qualifications including name, NPI, board certifications, specialty, and education; and (3) within seven business days of the denial, the URO conducts a consultation between the requesting provider and the qualified reviewer or clinical peer. This creates a multi-step procedural requirement that must be satisfied for every denial or downgrade.
Statutory Text
2. A utilization review organization shall not deny or downgrade a request for prior authorization unless all of the following requirements are met: a. The decision to deny or downgrade the request is made by either of the following: (1) A qualified reviewer, if the health care provider requesting prior authorization is a physician. (2) A clinical peer, if the health care provider requesting prior authorization is not a physician. b. The utilization review organization provides the health care provider that requested the prior authorization all of the following: (1) A written statement that cites the specific reasons for the denial or downgrade, including any coverage criteria or limits, or clinical criteria, that the utilization review organization considered or that was the basis for the denial or downgrade. The written statement shall be signed by either of the following: (a) The qualified reviewer that made the denial or downgrade determination, if the health care provider that requested prior authorization is a physician. (b) The clinical peer that made the denial or downgrade determination, if the health care provider that requested prior authorization is not a physician. (2) A written explanation of the utilization review organization's appeals process. The utilization review organization shall also provide the written explanation to the covered person for whom prior authorization was requested. (3) A written attestation that is either of the following: (a) If the health care provider that requested prior authorization is a physician, a written attestation that the qualified reviewer who made the denial or downgrade determination practices in the same or a similar specialty as the health care provider, and has the requisite training and expertise to treat the medical condition that is the subject of the request for prior authorization, including sufficient knowledge to determine whether the health care service is medically necessary or clinically appropriate. The attestation shall include the qualified reviewer's name, national provider identifier, board certifications, specialty expertise, and educational background. (b) If the health care provider that requested prior authorization is not a physician, a written attestation that the clinical peer who made the denial or downgrade determination practices in the same or a similar specialty as the health care provider, and the clinical peer has experience managing the specific medical condition or administering the health care service that is the subject of the request for prior authorization. The attestation shall include the clinical peer's name, national provider identifier, board certifications, specialty expertise, and educational background. 3. A utilization review organization that denies a request for prior authorization shall, no later than seven business days after the date that the utilization review organization notifies the requesting health care provider of the denial, conduct a consultation either in person or remotely, as follows: a. Between the health care provider and a qualified reviewer, if the health care provider requesting prior authorization is a physician. b. Between the health care provider and a clinical peer, if the health care provider requesting prior authorization is not a physician.
HC-01 Healthcare AI Decision Restrictions · HC-01.1 · Deployer · Healthcare
Section 3 (new § 514F.8A, subsection 4)
Plain Language
When a denial or downgrade is appealed by the requesting provider or covered person, the appeal must be conducted by a qualified reviewer or clinical peer (matched to the requesting provider's professional status) who was not involved in the initial adverse determination. The appeal reviewer must consider the known clinical aspects of the services under review, including the covered person's medical records and any medical literature submitted by the provider. This ensures independent review and individualized clinical assessment on appeal.
Statutory Text
4. a. If a utilization review organization's decision to deny or downgrade a request for prior authorization is appealed by the requesting health care provider or covered person, the appeal shall be conducted by either of the following: (1) A qualified reviewer, if the health care provider requesting prior authorization is a physician. (2) A clinical peer, if the health care provider requesting prior authorization is not a physician. b. A qualified reviewer or clinical peer involved in the initial denial or downgrade determination of a request for prior authorization that is the subject of an appeal shall not conduct the appeal. c. When conducting an appeal of a request for prior authorization, the qualified reviewer or clinical peer shall consider the known clinical aspects of the health care services under review, including but not limited to medical records relevant to the covered person's medical condition that is the subject of the health care services for which prior authorization is requested, and any relevant medical literature submitted by the health care provider as part of the appeal.
HC-01 Healthcare AI Decision Restrictions · HC-01.6 · Deployer · Healthcare
Section 3 (new § 514F.8A, subsection 1, paragraph j)
Plain Language
The qualified reviewer definition establishes the substantive clinical competency standard that the bill's peer review requirements enforce. A qualified reviewer must be a licensed physician practicing in the same or similar specialty as the requesting provider, with sufficient training and expertise to evaluate medical necessity for the specific condition at issue. This definition, combined with the operative provisions requiring qualified reviewer sign-off on denials and downgrades, ensures that adverse prior authorization determinations are made by clinicians with directly relevant expertise — not generalist reviewers or AI systems alone.
Statutory Text
"Qualified reviewer" means a physician that meets all of the following requirements: (1) The physician practices in the same or a similar specialty as the health care provider that requested a prior authorization. (2) The physician has the training and expertise to treat the specific medical condition that is the subject of a request for prior authorization, including sufficient knowledge to determine whether the health care service that is the subject of the request is medically necessary or clinically appropriate. (3) The physician is employed by or contracted with the utilization review organization or health carrier to which a health care provider submitted a request for prior authorization.
HC-01 Healthcare AI Decision Restrictions · HC-01.8 · Deployer · Healthcare
Section 3 (new § 514F.8A, subsection 2, paragraph b, subparagraph 1)
Plain Language
Each denial or downgrade communication must be signed by the named qualified reviewer or clinical peer who made the determination. This serves a disclosure function analogous to HC-01.8: the requesting provider receives a signed statement identifying the human professional responsible for the adverse decision, ensuring accountability and enabling the provider to evaluate whether the reviewer met the bill's qualification standards.
Statutory Text
The written statement shall be signed by either of the following: (a) The qualified reviewer that made the denial or downgrade determination, if the health care provider that requested prior authorization is a physician. (b) The clinical peer that made the denial or downgrade determination, if the health care provider that requested prior authorization is not a physician.