The Marriage and Family Therapy Advisory Committee of the Kansas Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board met remotely and spent detailed time discussing the growing use of artificial intelligence in clinical supervision and documentation, with members urging clear guardrails around informed consent and privacy.

The committee’s chair, Mary Jones, reopened an earlier presentation and asked members to consider “AI supervision” across both graduate programs and post‑licensure practice, saying the group should collect more information and bring recommendations back to the full board. David Fye, the BSRB executive director, framed the topic as one the board and advisory committees will continue to monitor.

Several members described concrete uses and concerns. Nicole Eidson said her agency plans to implement an AI tool (Elios) to assist clinicians with documentation and emphasized that the tool would not provide care but would “help with the documentation side of things,” adding that “if a client doesn’t feel comfortable with this … we have to respect that.” Marcy Lichtenberg and other members underscored risks to confidentiality and HIPAA compliance and urged that consent language be explicit if AI is used with clients.

Jim Kilmartin, serving as the public member, said patient consent to AI does not absolve practitioners or organizations of HIPAA responsibilities and predicted that “the big test case” on AI liability will shape how institutions proceed. Several members said institutions and training programs are already experimenting with AI and that the advisory committee should focus on practical guardrails rather than trying to micromanage every classroom decision.

David Fye described the tradeoffs regulators face: allow institutional flexibility while setting high‑level expectations for client safety and supervision quality. Committee members largely agreed that advisory committees should continue to collect policies from universities and agencies, and that the board should consider high‑level regulatory language about informed consent, confidentiality safeguards, and supervisory oversight rather than prescriptive classroom rules.

The committee did not adopt formal rules at this meeting. Members agreed the topic will remain on future agendas so that the advisory committee can gather more program‑level information and draft recommended language for the board to consider.

Next steps: the advisory committee will collect examples of institutional policies, continue the conversation in future meetings, and Mary Jones said she will report the committee’s views back to the BSRB board during the agency’s legislative and policy planning cycle.