Minnesota · Senate File · Ninety-Fourth Session
SF1856
Minnesota S.F. No. 1856 — A bill for an act relating to health insurance; prohibiting the use of artificial intelligence in the utilization review process; authorizing enforcement by the attorney general; amending Minnesota Statutes 2024, sections 62M.02, by adding a subdivision; 62M.09, subdivision 3; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 62M.

Status ● Introduced Effective N/A Passage Likelihood L

WHAT THIS BILL REGULATES · 1 REQUIREMENT TYPE

How Is This Bill Enforced

Enforcement Authority
The attorney general may enforce the prohibition under Minnesota Statutes section 8.31. No private right of action is created by the bill. Enforcement is agency-initiated.
Private Right of Action
No private right of action. Enforcement is exclusive to the designated authority.
Penalties
No specific monetary penalties are stated in the bill. Adverse determinations made in violation of the AI prohibition are null and void. Enforcement is through the attorney general under Minn. Stat. § 8.31, which provides for injunctive relief and civil penalties as available under that general enforcement statute.

What This Bill Requires

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.

Statutory Text
Analysis & Obligations
Minn. Stat. § 62M.02, subd. 2a
Definition of artificial intelligence

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 of the bill adds a new subdivision to the existing definitions section of Minnesota's utilization review statute (chapter 62M). It defines artificial intelligence by reference to the federal definition in 15 U.S.C. § 9401, which provides a broad, technology-neutral definition encompassing machine-based systems that make predictions, recommendations, or decisions.

Minn. Stat. § 62M.09, subd. 3
Physician reviewer; adverse determinations — AI attestation requirement
Deployer

(a) A physician must review and make the adverse determination under section 62M.05 in all cases in which the utilization review organizationUtilization review organizationA utilization review organization as used in Minnesota Statutes chapter 62M, referring to entities conducting utilization review of health care services.Minn. Stat. § 62M (existing law) has concluded that an adverse determination for clinical reasons is appropriate.

(b) The physician conducting the review and making the adverse determination must: (1) hold a current, unrestricted license to practice medicine in this state; and (2) have the same or similar medical specialty as a provider that typically treats or manages the condition for which the health care service has been requested. This paragraph does not apply to reviews conducted in connection with policies issued by a health plan company that is assessed less than three percent of the total amount assessed by the Minnesota Comprehensive Health Association.

(c) The physician should be reasonably available by telephone to discuss the determination with the attending health care professional.

(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a review of an adverse determination involving a prescription drug must be conducted by a licensed pharmacist or physician who is competent to evaluate the specific clinical issues presented in the review.

(e) This subdivision does not apply to outpatient mental health or substance abuse services governed by subdivision 3a.

(f) 1 The physician must attest in writing that artificial intelligenceArtificial intelligence"Artificial intelligence" has the meaning given in United States Code, title 15, section 9401.Minn. Stat. § 62M.02, subd. 2a was not used in the utilization review process. Notwithstanding section 62M.14, any adverse determination made in violation of this paragraph is null and void.

Section 2 amends the existing physician reviewer requirements for adverse determinations. It adds a new paragraph (f) requiring the reviewing physician to attest in writing that artificial intelligence was not used in the utilization review process. Any adverse determination made in violation of this attestation requirement is null and void, notwithstanding the existing enforcement framework in section 62M.14.

The existing paragraphs (a) through (e) — requiring physician review, licensure, specialty matching, telephone availability, prescription drug review by pharmacist or physician, and the mental health/substance abuse carve-out — remain unchanged. The new paragraph (f) adds the AI attestation as a procedural requirement layered on top of the existing physician review obligation.

Compliance actions 1 item
1
The physician conducting the review and making an adverse determination must attest in writing that artificial intelligenceArtificial intelligence"Artificial intelligence" has the meaning given in United States Code, title 15, section 9401.Minn. Stat. § 62M.02, subd. 2a was not used in the utilization review process. Any adverse determination made without this attestation — or where AI was in fact used — is null and void, notwithstanding the existing enforcement framework in section 62M.14.
HC-01.1
Minn. Stat. § 62M.20
Prohibition on artificial intelligence in utilization review
Deployer

(a) 2 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 organizationUtilization review organizationA utilization review organization as used in Minnesota Statutes chapter 62M, referring to entities conducting utilization review of health care services.Minn. Stat. § 62M (existing law) 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.

(b) 2 Notwithstanding section 62M.14, any adverse determination made in violation of this section is null and void.

(c) The attorney general may enforce this section under section 8.31.

Section 3 creates a new standalone prohibition on the use of artificial intelligence in utilization review. Paragraph (a) states the categorical ban and clarifies that it extends to every part of the review, evaluation, determination, and appeals processes — not merely the final adverse determination. Paragraph (b) voids any adverse determination made in violation. Paragraph (c) grants enforcement authority to the Minnesota Attorney General under section 8.31.

This is the broadest provision in the bill. While section 2's amendment to § 62M.09 focuses on the physician's attestation duty, this section addresses the organizational prohibition: the utilization review organization itself is prohibited from using AI anywhere in its processes.

Compliance actions 1 item
2
Utilization review organizationsUtilization review organizationA utilization review organization as used in Minnesota Statutes chapter 62M, referring to entities conducting utilization review of health care services.Minn. Stat. § 62M (existing law) must not use 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 the utilization review process, including review, evaluation, determination, and appeals. This is a categorical prohibition — AI may not be used in any capacity, not merely restricted from serving as the sole or primary basis for a decision. Any adverse determination made in violation is null and void, notwithstanding the standard enforcement provisions in section 62M.14. The attorney general may enforce this prohibition under section 8.31.
HC-01.1

Passage Likelihood

Low
Status Introduced
Chamber No passage
Committee No action
Majority party Yes
Bipartisan No
Prior session None

Legislative History

2025-02-24 Introduction and first reading
2025-02-24 Referred to Commerce and Consumer Protection
2025-02-27 Authors added Boldon; Mann; Mohamed
2025-03-10 Author added Mitchell
2026-02-26 Withdrawn and re-referred to Judiciary and Public Safety
2026-03-04 Author stricken Mitchell
2026-03-18 Comm report: Amended, No recommendation, re-referred to Commerce and Consumer Protection

Entry Last Reviewed

2026-05-20
AI generated