Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health It Ai topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Colorado panel advances bill to keep AI from replacing licensed psychotherapists
Summary
A Senate health committee adopted three amendments and voted to advance HB 11 95, a bill that would prohibit AI chatbots from delivering psychotherapy without a licensed clinician present while allowing AI tools for administrative support, after hours of testimony by clinicians and provider groups.
A Colorado Senate committee on May 11 advanced House Bill 11 95 after adopting three amendments aimed at clarifying definitions, liability and allowable AI uses in behavioral health. Sponsors and multiple professional associations told the committee that the bill preserves clinicians’ central role in psychotherapy while permitting AI to assist with administrative tasks.
Veronica Bell, executive director of the Colorado Behavioral Healthcare Council, said the bill "strikes an important balance" by protecting the therapeutic bond and allowing AI for nonclinical administrative support. She told the committee the association would move to a support position if the offered amendments clarifying liability were adopted.
Dr. Ryan Burkhart, executive director of the Colorado Counseling Association (testimony read by a representative), emphasized that psychotherapy is a "deeply human relational process" requiring licensed professionals who can make real-time clinical judgments grounded in education and supervised experience. "AI systems are not," the testimony said.
Dr. Rick Ginsburg of the Colorado Psychological Association testified that "psychotherapy is not a chatbot," urging guardrails to prevent misleading marketing and to preserve regulatory oversight and accountability to licensing boards.
During the amendment phase the committee adopted L11, which defined "synchronous" and added "patient navigation" as an allowable AI support function while clarifying the bill does not apply to FDA-approved treatments; L12, which requires clients receive written notice that AI cannot independently treat or diagnose and clarifies licensure and consumer-protection consequences; and L13, which addressed data collection, confidentiality standards, and liability allocation between clinicians and developer/deployer entities.
Sponsors and proponents said those changes responded to stakeholders including hospitals, insurers and technology companies and help ensure clinicians are not held liable for errors attributable to developers or deployers of AI tools. Opponents did not present sustained testimony against the bill in committee, though one physician urged careful wording so AI could be used to flag possible somatic causes of psychiatric symptoms.
A sponsor moved HB 11 95, as amended, to the committee of the whole with a favorable recommendation. The committee recorded that the motion passed and the bill advanced for further consideration.
The committee did not adopt any amendments that would ban clinicians from using AI as an assistive tool; rather, the record shows the panel focused on defining limits on AI’s role in direct therapeutic communication and on clarifying who is legally responsible when AI-driven errors occur.
Next steps: HB 11 95, as amended by L11–L13, goes to the committee of the whole. The committee did not take final action on the full text; sponsors and supporters signaled they expect further refinement in later stages.
