Panel and sponsor warn against using AI as substitute for licensed mental health providers in schools

CARSON CITY — Sponsors and supporters of Assembly Bill 406 told the Assembly Committee on Education on Tuesday they want to prevent artificial-intelligence systems from acting as or being marketed as licensed mental‑health providers, particularly where student safety and sensitive data are concerned.

Sponsor Assemblymember Jovan Jackson, who said he has a decade of experience providing mental-health services, framed the bill as a balance between using AI for administrative support and ensuring licensed professionals — social workers, counselors, psychologists and psychiatrists — remain the providers of record for clinical care.

Tess Opperman and Kyle Hillman, representing the National Association of Social Workers (Nevada chapter), described a pattern of apps and chatbots advertising therapeutic support without a human clinician in the loop. Hillman said the bill would “ensure these systems serve only as supportive administrative tools rather than chat bot replacements for our qualified mental health professionals.”

Supporters cited multiple harms in testimony and public examples: an instance of an AI chatbot giving harmful responses to a minor with suicidal ideation and another case in which a Google AI response urged self-harm; proponents said such incidents show AI can “hallucinate,” produce biased outputs and be unsafe when used as a clinical substitute. They also raised data‑privacy concerns when clinical conversations or recordings are transcribed and fed into third‑party systems.

Key provisions in the amended bill described to the committee include:

- Prohibiting AI systems from performing the functions and duties of school counselors, school psychologists and school social workers in school settings.

- Preventing companies from marketing AI as a provider of clinical mental or behavioral health care or implying the AI can replace licensed practitioners.

- Allowing the Division of Public and Behavioral Health to investigate violations and assess civil penalties up to $15,000 per incident; requiring the Division to create consumer guidance on seeking mental-health care and low-cost options.

- Exempting clergy providing religious counseling and materials that provide general self‑help information so long as they do not claim to deliver professional clinical care.

- Permitting use of AI for administrative purposes (scheduling, billing, records management and data analysis for operational purposes) but requiring providers to independently verify AI‑generated reports or treatment notes before relying on them.

Committee members expressed support for protecting students and emphasis on the human role in clinical care, while some raised questions about unintended limits on useful administrative AI tools used by licensed staff. Sponsors and witnesses said they are open to clarifying language to preserve safe administrative uses by licensed professionals while preventing AI from delivering clinical therapy or being marketed as a clinician.

Supporters who testified included Children's Advocacy Alliance, Nevada Association of School Boards, Nevada Psychiatric Association and Nevada Association of School Superintendents. No formal opposition testified at the hearing; several organizations asked for clarifications and additional language on permitted uses.

Why it matters: lawmakers are weighing how to regulate rapidly deployed AI interfaces that may be promoted as mental-health services but lack human oversight; AB 406 would create state-level limits on how AI can be presented and used in clinical contexts involving students.