Kentucky Panel Advances Bill Restricting AI in Mental Health Therapy

The recent advancement of House Bill 168 by the Kentucky House Health Services Committee represents a critical juncture in the intersection of healthcare and emerging technology. As generative artificial intelligence and large language models (LLMs) continue to permeate the digital health landscape, Kentucky lawmakers are taking a definitive stand: technology must remain a subordinate tool to human expertise in the sensitive realm of mental health. This legislation specifically targets the burgeoning market of automated therapy platforms, ensuring that the human-in-the-loop model is not just a best practice, but a legal requirement for any provider operating within the state.

At its core, House Bill 168 establishes that AI cannot function as a primary mental health provider. While the technology is permitted to assist in administrative tasks, summarize patient interactions, or suggest potential treatment pathways, the final clinical judgment—including diagnoses and treatment plans—must be rendered and signed off by a licensed human professional. This provision directly addresses one of the most significant risks associated with current-generation AI: the phenomenon of hallucinations, where models generate confident but factually incorrect or clinically dangerous information. In a psychiatric context, an AI hallucination could lead to inappropriate advice for a patient in crisis, potentially escalating a life-threatening situation without the intervention of a trained professional.

“

The recent advancement of House Bill 168 by the Kentucky House Health Services Committee represents a critical juncture in the intersection of healthcare and emerging technology.

The testimony surrounding the bill, particularly involving input from the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology, underscores the professional community's concern over the erosion of clinical standards. By codifying the necessity of human oversight, the bill protects the integrity of the therapeutic relationship, which many practitioners argue is built on an empathetic connection that algorithms cannot replicate. Furthermore, the legislation introduces a mandatory disclosure requirement. Providers must inform patients in writing if AI is being utilized as part of their care. This transparency is vital for informed consent, allowing patients to understand the nature of the tools being used to process their most private thoughts and emotions, and ensuring they are aware when they are interacting with a machine rather than a human.

From a market perspective, this regulatory shift presents a complex challenge for AI-driven health startups. Many tele-therapy companies have sought to scale their operations by automating initial patient intake or providing 24/7 chatbot support to bridge the gap between human sessions. Under HB 168, these companies must recalibrate their operational models to ensure that every AI-generated insight is vetted by a human clinician. While this may increase the cost of delivery compared to fully automated solutions, proponents argue that it creates a safer, more sustainable environment for innovation. By establishing clear legal boundaries, the state may actually reduce the long-term liability risks for companies, as they will have a defined framework for compliant AI integration that prioritizes patient safety over pure automation.

This legislative move in Kentucky is not an isolated event but part of a growing national trend where state legislatures are stepping in to fill the regulatory void left by the absence of comprehensive federal AI oversight. As other states look to Kentucky’s model, we may see a fragmented but increasingly robust patchwork of laws that prioritize consumer safety in high-stakes sectors like healthcare, finance, and law. The message from the Kentucky panel is clear: while AI holds immense promise for expanding access to mental health resources, it cannot replace the nuanced judgment, ethical accountability, and genuine empathy of a human practitioner. Looking forward, the success of HB 168 will likely depend on how effectively it is enforced and how the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology adapts its licensing and oversight processes to account for these new technological tools.