Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Artificial Intelligence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory members debate AI use in clinical practice, urge guidance on disclosures and HIPAA
Summary
About 257 psychologists answered a survey question on artificial intelligence; roughly 80% reported not using AI. Committee members raised HIPAA and privacy concerns, the potential for skill erosion, and recommended the board consider ethical guidance, disclosure requirements and consultation with bioethics/health-AI groups.
The licensed psychology advisory committee discussed artificial intelligence in clinical practice at length on Oct. 14.
David Fye said 257 licensed psychologists answered the AI question in the survey; roughly 196 (about 80%) indicated they do not use AI in practice, 11 said they are moving toward use and three were unsure. Among reported uses were grammar and writing assistance, documentation and treatment planning.
Committee members raised several concerns: privacy and HIPAA compliance when clinical material is put into public AI tools; potential erosion of core clinical skills if clinicians overly rely on AI report writers; ethical risks when patients are not told they are interacting with AI; and limitations of current testing vendors and safeguards. Several members suggested the board consider recommending upfront disclosure if AI tools are used in care, and to consult external experts such as the Center for Practical Bioethics and the Coalition for Health AI (CHAI) to inform guidance.
Members also cited examples from other jurisdictions. One member said Illinois has a law preventing entities that are not human from representing themselves as therapists; another noted professional organizations are already drafting guidance.
Why it matters: AI is evolving rapidly and raises privacy, ethical and competency questions that may require the board to offer guardrails or disclosure expectations to protect clients.
What’s next: Committee members proposed compiling actionable items and consulting bioethics and health-AI resources to inform potential guidance or model language the board could consider.
