Kansas advisory committee hears mixed views on artificial intelligence in clinical work

The advisory committee reviewed survey results and practitioner experiences with artificial intelligence in behavioral-health practice, finding substantial variation across clinicians and worksites.

Executive Director David Fye summarized survey results: among master's-level respondents, about 76 of 113 said they did not use AI; among licensed clinical psychotherapists, about 88 of 123 said no. He told the committee that some "no" responses included qualifiers such as "not yet" or "my worksite doesn't allow it."

Committee members reported both enthusiasm and caution. Jennifer Schreiner, advisory committee member, described a tool her organization piloted that creates summaries of sessions and does not retain a verbatim recording: "It's not stored on a server anywhere for a number of days like some of the other ones that reported word by word," she said, adding clinicians still must review and sign notes before finalizing them. Other members said clinicians use AI for drafting group‑therapy plans, simplifying clinical concepts for families, and improving documentation consistency.

Concerns discussed included confidentiality, storage and consent, forensic contexts and clients with paranoia. Committee members noted variation in third-party products: some platforms generate a word-for-word transcript that raises storage and privacy issues; others create temporary summaries that do not persist.

Regulatory and policy context: members discussed state-level approaches. Fye and others noted Utah and Virginia had active policy work on AI; the committee suggested BSRB monitor other states and professional-association guidance and consider guidance on disclosure and consent for AI-enabled clinical tools.

Ending: The committee did not adopt regulatory changes but directed staff to monitor state developments and stakeholder guidance and to include AI in future regulation review and professional guidance work.