Latest action: Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Limits artificial intelligence use by doctors in making patient care decisions.
The problem
Growing concern that AI systems are replacing doctor judgment in medical decisions, potentially reducing quality care and doctor accountability for patient outcomes.
The proposal
Restricts how doctors can use AI tools when diagnosing patients and deciding on treatments. Requires human doctors to make final decisions.
The impact
Affects doctors, patients, hospitals, and AI medical technology companies. Patients may see longer wait times; doctors gain authority; tech companies face limitations.
Ensures that human doctors, not computers, make final decisions about patient care. This preserves doctor responsibility and accountability for medical outcomes.
Reduces risks from AI making mistakes in diagnosis or treatment. Human doctors can catch errors and use their experience to help patients.
Patients may feel more confident when they know their doctor is making decisions, not an algorithm. This strengthens the relationship between doctors and patients.
Keeps doctors from depending too heavily on AI tools that might fail or give wrong answers, ensuring skilled medical judgment stays central.
Doctors spending more time on decisions that AI could help speed up could raise hospital expenses and patient bills.
Restrictions on AI use could slow development of new medical tools that help doctors work better. Companies may invest less in health technology.
Requiring human doctors to override AI might make diagnosis and treatment slower, especially in busy hospitals. Patients might wait longer for results.
Medical AI often catches diseases earlier or more accurately than doctors alone. Limiting it might mean missing some diagnoses that AI would find.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.