SB 444: Private Review Agents; certain decisions with regard to the provision of insurance coverage for healthcare services shall not be based solely on artificial intelligence systems; provide

In plain language

What the bill does

Who it affects

Why it matters

Key provisions

From the bill

Discussed in meetings (16)

The House and Senate meetings that took this bill up, from their machine transcripts. Each account was written by Georgia Commons with AI and is not part of the record; the video is what was said.

1. Senate Insurance and Labor Committee, February 5, 2026

   From 1:00:11 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 444 would allow artificial intelligence to help process requests for advance approval of medical care, but prohibit its use as the sole basis for an unfavorable coverage decision. The sponsor said a clinical peer would need to review the case before a denial, and that reviewer’s decision would prevail. The sponsor described the goal as speeding a time-consuming process while ensuring the full medical record is considered. One member asked whether patients should be notified when artificial intelligence is used. The sponsor offered to consider the issue but questioned where notification would fit, explaining that providers generally communicate with insurers and that a denial would not be made solely by artificial intelligence. The same member raised concerns about discriminatory algorithms and pricing. The sponsor responded that the bill concerns medical necessity, not pricing, and emphasized human review before a final denial. The chair described that review as a patient protection. No amendment was offered. The committee approved the bill 6–1, and the chair announced that it would go to Rules.

2. Senate Rules Committee, February 9, 2026

   From 0:24:40 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor described the bill as a consumer protection measure concerning prior authorization for health care. The sponsor said that when AI is used, a human clinical peer would have to participate before an adverse decision is made. No questions or vote were shown.

3. Senate Rules Committee, February 10, 2026

   From 0:08:05 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor described SB 444 as a patient-protection measure to ensure human involvement when artificial intelligence is used in prior authorization decisions. No substantive questions followed. Later, the sponsor selected the bill to move forward, and the committee unanimously approved it together with two other bills.

4. Senate floor session, February 11, 2026 (legislative day 17)

   From 2:06:21 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the bill's status history (Senate Third Read)

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 444 would protect patients by requiring a human clinical peer to participate before an adverse insurance coverage determination is made. The sponsor explained that insurers often require approval before treatment and said the bill recognizes artificial intelligence's role while preventing certain decisions from being based solely on AI or other software. The Insurance and Labor Committee recommended passage. No questions or opposing speeches followed, and the Senate passed the bill 49-0.

5. House Technology and Infrastructure Innovation Committee, March 5, 2026

   From 0:27:00 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the bill would allow artificial intelligence in insurance authorization reviews but prohibit it from being the sole basis for an adverse coverage decision or overriding a clinical peer’s judgment. The sponsor said human review can account for circumstances missing from medical records, cited Stanford research raising concerns about algorithms and oversight, and cited an American Medical Association paper reporting higher denial rates with AI. Members questioned whether the bill’s definitions should match language developed elsewhere in Georgia law and accommodate future technology. The chair proposed working on revised definitions before a second hearing. The sponsor welcomed changes, explaining that the current wording came from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Another member noted that definitions can appropriately differ by legal context, including insurance. A Medical Association of Georgia witness supported the bill, arguing that qualified human review would help prevent automated errors and bias and preserve accountability for decisions affecting care. A member also suggested discussing language distinguishing human intelligence from AI. The chair planned a small-group discussion with the sponsor and interested members before the next hearing. No amendment was adopted and no vote was taken.

6. House Technology and Infrastructure Innovation Committee, March 11, 2026

   From 0:13:16 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the bill would allow AI in medical prior authorization but prohibit using it as the sole basis for denying care, preserving review by a qualified clinical peer. Asked about potential loss of federal broadband funding under an executive order, the sponsor said the current administration had raised no objection to this narrowly focused bill. Members questioned whether private review agent meant an AI system; the sponsor and committee attorney explained that existing law defines the term as a person or entity performing insurance utilization review. Asked about disclosure to patients, the sponsor said disclosure should occur through general intake paperwork but was not specifically required by this bill. The chair proposed expedited review after denial, while the sponsor said review needed to occur before denial. Another member repeatedly sought assurance that a human must thoroughly review a potential denial. The sponsor said existing law required that process, but members requested more explicit language. The chair also suggested replacing the AI definition with language developed for HB 171 for consistency. No amendment was adopted. The chair asked members and the sponsor to refine the bill before Tuesday, and no vote occurred.

7. House Technology and Infrastructure Innovation Committee, March 17, 2026

   From 0:33:07 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: After initially postponing consideration while presenters were unavailable, the committee heard a substitute from a committee member presenting on the sponsor’s behalf. The presenter said the substitute clarified that artificial intelligence and other software could not override a clinical peer’s judgment in insurance coverage reviews, keeping a human involved in the decision. The presenter also said the substitute used the House’s definition of an artificial intelligence system and that the sponsor supported the changes. In response to the chair’s question, the presenter confirmed that language requiring a clinical peer’s participation was newly added. With no further questions or discussion, the committee approved the substitute by voice vote and sent it to Rules. No vote count was stated.

8. House Rules Committee, March 19, 2026

   From 0:38:46 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the bill would require human involvement before an insurer makes an adverse prior-authorization decision using artificial intelligence. One committee member emphasized having a person explain a denial to patients or providers. The sponsor said existing protections require review by a clinical peer and that AI should not override that professional judgment. Another member asked whether human review would delay approvals. The sponsor said AI approvals could proceed, while potential denials needed a thorough review of the medical record. Asked whether a denial should come from a provider licensed in Georgia, the sponsor agreed and cited the existing definition of a clinical peer. The committee later placed the bill on the Legislative Day 34 calendar without voiced opposition.

9. House floor session, March 19, 2026 (legislative day 34)

   From 2:08:37 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the 2026 House Journal, p. 2875

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The clerk described SB 444 as prohibiting certain health-insurance coverage decisions based solely on artificial intelligence. The House sponsor said collecting data to support decisions was reasonable, but a human should make a decision denying treatment. There were no questions. The House adopted the committee substitute without objection and passed the bill, 166 to 0.

10. Senate floor session, March 25, 2026 (legislative day 37)

    From 7:29:51 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the bill's status history (Senate Agreed House Amend or Sub)

    Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 444 would require human involvement before an insurer denied medical care through prior authorization, rather than allowing denial solely through artificial intelligence. The sponsor said AI could still assist with coverage verification and approvals, and illustrated concerns by describing an AI-generated wrist diagram with incorrectly named bones. The sponsor said House changes revised the AI definition and clarified that AI judgment could not override a clinical peer's judgment. No questions or opposition followed. The Senate agreed to the House substitute 47 to 0.

• Read aloud: Senate floor session, February 3, 2026 (legislative day 11), 0:25:19
• Read aloud: Senate floor session, February 6, 2026 (legislative day 14), 0:37:09
• Read aloud: Senate floor session, February 9, 2026 (legislative day 15), 0:27:18
• Read aloud: House floor session, February 12, 2026 (legislative day 18), 0:52:11
• Read aloud: House floor session, February 17, 2026 (legislative day 19), 1:00:20
• Read aloud: House floor session, March 18, 2026 (legislative day 33), 0:55:06

Status timeline

Sponsors

Votes

Topics