WHAT THIS BILL REGULATES · 1 REQUIREMENT TYPE
How Is This Bill Enforced
Verbatim statutory text on the left; plain-language analysis and a per-section checklist on the right. Numbered markers cross-link to the matching checklist row.
subd. 2a Subd. 2a. Artificial intelligenceArtificial intelligence"Artificial intelligence" has the meaning given in United States Code, title 15, section 9401.Minn. Stat. § 62M.02, subd. 2a. "Artificial intelligenceArtificial intelligence"Artificial intelligence" has the meaning given in United States Code, title 15, section 9401.Minn. Stat. § 62M.02, subd. 2a" has the meaning given in United States Code, title 15, section 9401.
Section 1 amends the existing definitions section of Minnesota's utilization review statute (Chapter 62M) by adding a definition of artificial intelligence. Rather than creating a bespoke definition, the bill incorporates by reference the federal definition at 15 U.S.C. § 9401 (the National AI Initiative Act definition), which broadly defines AI as a machine-based system that can make predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments.
1 The use of artificial intelligenceArtificial intelligence"Artificial intelligence" has the meaning given in United States Code, title 15, section 9401.Minn. Stat. § 62M.02, subd. 2a is prohibited in utilization review. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, a utilization review organization is prohibited from using artificial intelligenceArtificial intelligence"Artificial intelligence" has the meaning given in United States Code, title 15, section 9401.Minn. Stat. § 62M.02, subd. 2a in any part of its review, evaluation, determination, or appeals processes.
Section 2 creates new section 62M.20, which imposes a categorical prohibition on the use of artificial intelligence in utilization review. The first sentence establishes the general rule; the second sentence reinforces it by specifying that a utilization review organization may not use AI in any part of its review, evaluation, determination, or appeals processes. This is notably an absolute ban — not a restriction requiring human oversight or limiting AI to a subordinate role — making it one of the most restrictive state-level approaches to AI in healthcare coverage determinations.