Senate committee reviews bill establishing neurological rights and directing AI council to study health-sector uses

The Senate Health & Welfare Committee reviewed H.814 on April 1, a bill that recognizes neurological rights and asks the state's AI advisory council to study the ethical use of artificial intelligence in health and human services.

"It is the intent of the general assembly to protect human rights, promote equity, increase efficiency, and enhance accessibility, create transparency, and guarantee accountability in health care and human services through the ethical and responsible use of artificial intelligence technology," legislative counsel Jen Harvey said as she read the bill's intent section.

Harvey told the committee the bill inserts a new chapter in Title 18 to recognize individual rights including neural data privacy, freedom of thought, nondiscrimination in the development of neurotechnologies, protection from unauthorized access to or manipulation of brain activity, and safeguards against neurotechnological alterations to mental functions.

H.814 also amends the existing AI advisory council in Title 3. The bill changes some appointment authorities (for example, adding members appointed by the Vermont Medical Society and the Vermont chapter of the National Association of Social Workers), adds the state treasurer or designee, and extends the council's sunset by three years beyond the scheduled repeal date of 06/30/2027.

The bill directs the council, in coordination with the Division of Artificial Intelligence, to review professional guidance from organizations such as the American Medical Association, the National Association of Social Workers and the National Education Association; to examine uses of AI in health care, human services, education, public participation and public finance; and to propose pilot projects that increase public engagement using AI. The council must submit a written report to the General Assembly by January 15 recommending any further statutory changes, proposed definitions, guidance on generative AI for regulated professions and suggestions for regulating AI in insurance utilization review processes.

Committee members pressed counsel on statutory definitions and possible conflicts with other bills. "If there isn't a specific definition of generative AI," one senator asked, "then those recommendations might be all over the place." Harvey said some definitions exist in statute but that the field is evolving and the council's recommendations could propose harmonized terminology.

Lawmakers also discussed coordination with companion or related measures. Counsel and legislators said H.814, which focuses on government use and on directing the council, does not appear to conflict with bills that address recording of visits or administrative AI uses, but committee members asked staff to compare companion bills and provide a written chart of differences.

Several senators suggested the committee hear additional technical witnesses, including the Division of Artificial Intelligence at the Agency of Digital Services and external groups such as the Neural Rights Foundation, which testified in a prior committee. Supporters said the bill uses internationally discussed language on neurological rights and aims to create guardrails while preserving innovation.

The committee did not take a final vote on H.814 during the session; members said they would schedule additional time for detailed review and requested supplemental materials, including the AI task force report and the counsel's comparison of companion bills.

The reporter and committee staff will provide requested documents and schedule future hearings so members can examine definitions, membership choices and the council's initial tasks.