2026 Interim Study Committees

Cryptocurrency: Meeting 1

18 August 2026 · 10:00 a.m. · Room 412 East, State Capitol

Minutes for this meeting were published after our first write-up. What follows is drawn from them, from the published agenda and from the materials filed. The recording below is the full record.

What was on the agenda

Call to order and roll call; opening remarks by Anne Sappenfield, Director of the Legislative Council staff; introduction of committee members and of the assignment; a description of the distributed materials by committee staff; four presentations; a roundtable on members’ priorities for the committee; and plans for future meetings.

What was presented

Jeffrey M. Glazer, Clinical Professor, University of Wisconsin Law & Entrepreneurship Clinic, filed a technical briefing on blockchains, validators and staking. It separates funding a validator from operating one: in solo staking the customer keeps the withdrawal credential, in exchange staking the exchange holds both keys and the customer holds a book entry, and in liquid staking the credential points at the protocol’s own contract and the customer holds a token. It puts the population able to run a validator alone at about 0.06 per cent of Ethereum addresses with a balance (roughly 120,000 of some 200 million), and gives break-even for a staking service at a 10 per cent commission as roughly 21,600 ETH under management, against operating expenses of about $122,000 a year.

Michael Gavigan, Assistant Chief Legal Counsel in the Office of the Secretary, and Robin Jacobs, Attorney Supervisor in the Enforcement Bureau, presented for the Department of Financial Institutions, Division of Securities. Their deck sets out the two definitional tests in s. 551.102 (28), Stats. (the Howey investment-contract test and the risk-capital test), and sorts staking into four kinds: solo home staking, bespoke staking-as-a-service, DeFi pooled staking, and CeFi scalable staking. It lists ten ways scalable services differ from solo staking, among them pooling with no minimum, taking custody, setting their own fees and returns, running additional reward layers such as MEV, assuming governance rights over custodied assets, and issuing wrapped liquidity tokens. It states that relevant court proceedings, SEC v. Kraken (2023), SEC v. Binance (2024), SEC v. Coinbase (2024) and the FTX bankruptcy (2022), “further suggest CEFI-level staking services are likely securities.” It also carries the Division’s enforcement remedies and 2025 Wisconsin fraud data: residents over 60 reported 3,014 elder-fraud complaints to the FBI and more than $92 million in losses, including over $43 million from investment scams and $46 million from cryptocurrency scams. A closing slide lists items other than staking the committee could reach: a broad carve-out of crypto from the definition of securities, a narrower carve-out, a UCC update for controllable electronic records, entrepreneurial or liaison offices and pilot projects, and the federal CLARITY Act.

Dave Groshek, Vice President of Advocacy at The Wisconsin Credit Union League, appeared with Heather Ristow, Senior Vice President and Chief Experience Officer, and Ryan McMillan, Technology Services Director, both of Corporate Central Credit Union. His filed statement puts the League’s membership at 3.9 million, points to the GENIUS Act being implemented through the NCUA and the CLARITY Act pending in the U.S. Senate as the reason the timing is right for the state to look at this, and asks that any recommendation protect members from fraud, keep meaningful enforcement against fraudulent activity, and let credit unions offer digital currency services if they choose to.

Chris Borgerding, Vice President of Government Relations at the Wisconsin Bankers Association (which he says represents 96 per cent of Wisconsin banks and their 30,000 employees) filed a statement built around one distinction and five principles. The distinction: a person who commits cryptocurrency they continue to control is doing something closer to operating equipment, while a person who hands assets to a company that sets the terms, takes a fee and advertises a return is in a different arrangement, and the committee’s charge describes the second. The five principles: regulate the relationship rather than the technology; if existing protections are removed, replace them with something; preserve the state’s authority to act against fraud, because declaring an activity outside a body of law takes the anti-fraud provisions with it; tell consumers what they are getting into, given lock-up periods, network penalties, rehypothecation and the absence of deposit insurance; and watch the federal timeline, because what exists federally is staff-level guidance rather than a rule or a statute. The statement says WBA is not asking the committee to recommend prohibiting anything and is not opposed to the technology.

Direction from the committee

The minutes record that Public Members Michael Adam and Phil Suckow were excused. In the closing roundtable Chair Stafsholt offered his view that any legislation should avoid unintended consequences, “such as unintentionally making a situation worse or inadvertently picking winners and losers in an area,” and that the committee should determine whether legislation is needed at all before making any recommendation. He described the first meeting as information gathering and the second as “idea generation.”

Patrick Ward of the Legislative Council staff noted that the committee could hear testimony about the federal framework for stablecoins and the potential role of the state in that area, and the chair noted possible federal changes through the CLARITY Act before the next meeting. In closing, the chair “invited members of the committee and members of the public to reach out about specific topics or speakers for the committee to consider,” and announced the next meeting for 15 October 2026.

Documents filed for this meeting

• Agenda archived · source
• Minutes archived · source
• Staff Brief 2026‑03, Study Committee on Cryptocurrency (11 August 2026) archived · source
• Glazer presentation, “Crypto and Exchanges: A technical briefing on blockchains, validators, and staking” archived · source
• DFI Division of Securities presentation archived · source
• Testimony of Dave Groshek, The Wisconsin Credit Union League archived · source
• Testimony of Chris Borgerding, Wisconsin Bankers Association archived · source
• Recording of the livestream (free WisconsinEye registration required) source

Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Meeting 1

13 August 2026 · 10:00 a.m. to 4:23 p.m. · Room 411 South, State Capitol

Minutes for this meeting have been published. Everything below comes from them and from the materials filed.

What was taken up

A quorum was present and every member is recorded present, Julie Pawola by videoconference. Council staff present: Anne Sappenfield, Margit Kelley and Emily Hicks. After opening remarks and an introductory video on the work of study committees, members introduced themselves, and Margit Kelley described Staff Brief 2026‑02: background on AI, its regulation in health care federally and in other states, and data on adoption and use.

What was presented

Samantha Scotti, Associate Director of the Health Program at the National Conference of State Legislatures, gave an overview of AI health legislation in other states and identified five categories of it: ensuring responsible use; clinical oversight and use; requiring providers to disclose their use of AI to patients; regulating mental health chatbots; and regulating the use of AI in utilization management. Members asked her about AI sandbox models elsewhere, whether other states have legislated to attract AI companies, and how other states define “artificial intelligence.”

David Stauss, founder of Stauss PLLC, surveyed state AI law across nine categories, from frontier-model and transparency laws through employment, chatbots, algorithmic pricing and insurer use of AI, and named four common themes: disclosure requirements, mental-health guardrails, special protections for minors, and private rights of action. Asked for his recommendations on durable legislation, the minutes record that he advised the committee first to consider broad data privacy legislation as an important first step in the absence of a comprehensive federal law, to avoid legislation too specific to any particular technology, and to legislate on principles with careful analysis of the definitional complexities.

Three patient-advocacy organisations followed. Emily Petersen of the Greater Wisconsin Agency on Aging Resources described AI in the administration of Medicare and state Medicaid programs and the scam exposure it creates for older adults, and recommended disclosure of AI use to patients and members, human oversight and review of coverage denials and other adverse determinations, and that new AI tools be piloted, tested and retested. Erin Fabrizius and Leslie Spencer-Herrera of AARP Wisconsin presented national and Wisconsin survey data, over half of older adults comfortable with AI for administrative tasks and scribing, with data privacy, deskilling of professionals and AI-driven insurance decisions as the top concerns, and recommended disclosure of the reasons for AI-informed adverse coverage decisions, disclosure by practitioners of AI use and why, initial and ongoing third-party evaluation of AI tools, clarity on provider accountability and liability, human oversight, and a right to challenge and appeal AI-informed decisions. Mary Kay Battaglia of NAMI Wisconsin introduced the Mindbench.ai research project on how large language models perform when people turn to them for mental health support, set out NAMI’s concerns about hallucination, overconfidence, sycophancy, inconsistency and privacy, and said AI tools should not substitute for licensed professionals and should carry guardrails.

Direction from the committee

The day closed with a roundtable in which every member stated a priority, and the minutes record each one. Several threads ran through more than one member:

• A workable definition of “artificial intelligence.” The chair named it as her first priority; Rep. Bare named it too.
• Principles-based, durable, agile legislation rather than rules written around a particular technology: Rep. Bare, Dr. Huth, Dr. Liao, and Ms. Nevermann on adaptability.
• Data privacy. Vice Chair Neylon named it as his main interest; Mr. Hoffert raised gaps in existing health privacy law that leave some health information uncovered.
• A regulatory sandbox. Dr. Liao asked to learn from other states’ sandbox experience; Dr. Boge said he was interested in one as well.
• Consent versus disclosure. Sen. Keyeski and Dr. Huth both asked the committee to work out the difference in a clinical setting.
• Human oversight and accountability. Vice Chair Neylon on human-in-the-loop requirements, Dr. Fung on opening the “black box” and keeping human supervision, Mr. Blair on who is accountable when AI is used in health care and insurance, Ms. Pawola on responsibility for use in care.
• Payers. Ms. Nevermann asked to hear from payers about their use of AI and how they ensure transparency and human review.
• What already applies. Mr. Mattson asked for what has already been introduced in Wisconsin on AI in health care and what existing law already covers current uses.
• Also named: mental health impacts and bias reduction (Sen. Keyeski), harm-tiered regulation (Dr. Boge), standard-of-care formation (Ms. Skold), safety and testing practice (Mr. Hoffert), trust and access (Mr. Harris), and ethics, data transmission privacy and deskilling (Ms. Anderson).

The chair also said she hopes to hear firsthand from providers using AI in day-to-day practice. The minutes go from the roundtable to adjournment and record no date for a further meeting.

Documents filed for this meeting

• Agenda archived · source
• Minutes archived · source
• Staff Brief 2026‑02 (5 August 2026) archived · source
• Scotti presentation, “Overview of Artificial Intelligence Legislation in Health Care” (NCSL) archived · source
• Stauss presentation, “U.S. State AI Laws: An Overview” archived · source
• Petersen presentation, “Potential Impacts of AI in Healthcare on Older Adults in Wisconsin” (GWAAR) archived · source
• AARP Wisconsin presentation on patient experience of AI in health care archived · source
• AARP Wisconsin handout, “Wisconsin Patients & AI in Health Care” archived · source
• Battaglia presentation, “AI and Mental Health” (NAMI Wisconsin) archived · source
• NAMI Board of Directors resolution on AI general-purpose chatbots and mental health (30 May 2026) archived · source
• NAMI FAQ on its work on AI and mental health (November 2025) archived · source
• Recording of the livestream (free WisconsinEye registration required) source

Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Meeting 2

9 September 2026 · 9:00 a.m. to 4:55 p.m. · Room 411 South, State Capitol

Minutes for this meeting have been published. Everything below comes from them and from the materials filed. WisconsinEye broadcast the meeting: recording (free registration required).

What was taken up

A quorum was present. Rep. Adam Neylon, the vice-chair, and Public Member Dr. Mark Huth were excused. Council staff present: Margit Kelley, Emily Hicks and Patrick Ward. The committee approved the minutes of its 13 August meeting by unanimous consent, then heard two policy presentations and three panels: health care practitioners, hospitals and clinics, and technology developers. Two written memos were filed for the meeting, one from the Wisconsin Hospital Association and one from the Department of Safety and Professional Services with the Medical Examining Board.

What was presented

Jordan Francis, Senior Policy Counsel for U.S. Legislation at the Future of Privacy Forum, presented on the U.S. consumer privacy law landscape, noting that the United States is a global outlier without a general consumer data privacy law and that states have stepped in. Asked by members, he said a comprehensive consumer data privacy law could provide a foundation for consumers to more comfortably use AI resources for health and well-being, that the Connecticut model is the approach most commonly used among the states, and that studies show consumer “consent fatigue” can cut against the utility of disclosure requirements; he suggested a “consumer expectations model,” like California’s, as an alternative.

Frank B. Meyers, Director of Regulatory Innovation and Member Services at the Federation of State Medical Boards, described policies from FSMB, California and Texas that encourage or require a licensed practitioner to disclose certain uses of AI, and another approach, enacted in six states, that provides a regulatory “sandbox” to pilot a waiver for AI activities that would otherwise require a licensed clinician. An FSMB workgroup is expected to report practical guidance to state medical boards in April 2027. He said a physician using an AI tool remains responsible for the clinical notes and the care provided.

Three practitioners followed. Dr. Richard Bruce (UW–Madison, radiology) said 80 per cent of FDA-approved devices that contain AI are in radiology. Sara Kroenke (UnityPoint Health – Meriter) set out a framework that applies the most caution to AI that communicates directly with patients in place of a professional, and listed longer-term legislative opportunities including clear explanation of how AI may use patient information, disclosure or consent when AI is used beyond operational purposes, limits on retaining clinical recordings, human accountability for clinical decisions, vendor transparency, and multidisciplinary governance. Dr. Ramsey G. Larson (Fort HealthCare) suggested legislation prohibiting AI from being licensed to practise medicine, representing itself as a credentialed professional, making independent patient-care decisions or prescribing autonomously, with licensed practitioners retaining final clinical authority and disclosing AI use to patients; he filed a written proposal, “The Wisconsin Protecting the Practice of Medicine Act.”

For hospitals and clinics, Sara Scheu (Marshfield Clinic) described her system’s commitments to human judgment, safety monitoring, transparency, and regulation that is risk-based, technology-neutral and consistent across state lines. Dr. Nicole Mubanga (Outreach Community Health Centers) asked that any regulation be realistic for the size of a provider, keep disclosure and consent flexible rather than scripted, protect a practitioner’s judgement to override AI output, and fund or facilitate shared resources for small and safety-net providers.

Four technology developers closed the day. Dr. Jackie Gerhart, Chief Medical Officer of Epic, cited data that one in three adults use AI for health questions while three in four worry about privacy. Karen Hay and Jeff Szczerbinski of Salesforce recommended three pillars: interoperability through open standards, meaningful human participation with no decisions made by automation alone, and strong data protection and security standards. Deepak Arora (Wearable Technologies, Inc.) noted that consumer data privacy bills might not affect smaller start-ups like his, and recommended aligning Wisconsin law with other states and providing a supervised place, such as Utah’s sandbox, for test runs. Nick Myers (Recovery.com) recommended that a human make the final call on coverage denials, that AI be barred from posing as a licensed practitioner, that sensitive data be protected, and a small state AI office or sandbox.

Direction from the committee

The minutes record no committee discussion at this meeting beyond the approval of the August minutes. The day was given to testimony.

Documents filed for this meeting

• Agenda archived · source
• Minutes archived · source
• Wisconsin Hospital Association memo to the committee (3 September 2026) archived · source
• Department of Safety and Professional Services and Medical Examining Board memo on the role of DSPS (3 September 2026) archived · source
• Francis presentation on the U.S. consumer privacy law landscape (Future of Privacy Forum) archived · source
• Francis handout, “Comprehensive Consumer Privacy Laws: The Baseline for Emerging Technology Regulations” archived · source
• Meyers presentation on AI in medical practice (Federation of State Medical Boards) archived · source
• Bruce presentation (UW–Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, radiology) archived · source
• Kroenke presentation (UnityPoint Health – Meriter) archived · source
• Larson handout, “The Wisconsin Protecting the Practice of Medicine Act” (Fort HealthCare) archived · source
• Scheu presentation (Marshfield Clinic) archived · source
• Mubanga presentation (Outreach Community Health Centers) archived · source
• Gerhart presentation (Epic) archived · source
• Hay and Szczerbinski presentation (Salesforce) archived · source
• Arora presentation (Wearable Technologies, Inc.) archived · source
• Myers presentation (Recovery.com) archived · source

Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Meeting 3

10 September 2026 · 9:00 a.m. to 3:43 p.m. · Room 411 South, State Capitol

Minutes for this meeting have been published. Everything below comes from them and from the materials filed. WisconsinEye broadcast the meeting: recording (free registration required).

What was taken up

A quorum was present. Rep. Neylon and Dr. Huth were again excused, and the same three staff attorneys attended. The committee heard presentations on accreditation, from three health care coverage payers, from three practitioner educators, from the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance, from the American Psychological Association, from the director of Utah’s Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy and from the Healthcare Trust Institute, and staff described Memo No. 1.

What was presented

Dr. Shawn Griffin, President and CEO of URAC, described its two AI accreditation pathways, one for health care AI users and one for developers, and said accreditation requirements in state law would survive federal preemption; he suggested the state consider requiring accreditation of AI tools in state government contracting.

Three payers followed. Anne Treankler (Delta Dental of Wisconsin) said her company uses AI as a screening tool to flag claims for further clinical review and that “no claims are denied by AI,” and recommended human accountability for final coverage decisions, a governance framework, reasonable transparency, and consistency across state and federal regulation. Ryan Peterson (The Alliance, a self-funded employers’ cooperative) recommended a practical disclosure framework for AI companies that access, use or store HIPAA-governed data, with the ability for employers to audit that use. Sara Muhlbauer (Lakeland Care, Inc.) recommended policies built on risk tiers, practical implementation support, clear accountability and proportionate safe harbours.

Three educators then spoke to the workforce. Dr. Erick Tarula (UW–Madison) described “deskilling,” “never-skilling” and “miss-skilling,” and recommended AI-specific continuing education, competence verification in any human-in-the-loop standard, and demographic validation and transparency for AI tools in state-funded health programmes. Dr. John Hayes (Medical College of Wisconsin) agreed, and added that the state should avoid restricting medical education to outdated tools and support secure enterprise access for small and rural systems. Erica Neilitz (Nicolet College) asked for policies that prepare the workforce, protect professional judgment and keep nurses involved in AI design and governance.

For the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance, Commissioner Nathan Houdek, Sarah Smith, Coral Manning and Libby Boer described two efforts of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners: a model bulletin on AI governance, adopted by Wisconsin and 24 other states, and a “risk evaluation supplement” pilot in 12 states, including Wisconsin. They recommended that any state regulation avoid inconsistency among states and consider forthcoming NAIC model acts on privacy, cybersecurity and third-party data vendors. In answer to members, they said that in Wisconsin the use of AI in a prior authorization determination is allowed as long as it violates no current law.

Dr. C. Vaile Wright, Senior Director for Health Care Innovation at the American Psychological Association, described the kinds of conversational chatbots now used for emotional support and recommended, among other things, transparency guidelines, “safe-by-default” settings, age-appropriate design and predeployment testing, and independent research; the APA is developing sample legislation to prohibit providing mental and behavioural health services without an appropriate licence.

Zachary Boyd, Director of the Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy in the Utah Department of Commerce, described the office’s policy development and sandbox programmes. Sandbox agreements provide regulatory mitigation for 12 months, renewable for two further 12-month periods, and involve a third-party expert review and data-sharing agreements. He said other states can borrow from Utah’s work but may have state-specific reasons for their own approach.

Tina Olson Grande, President and CEO of the Healthcare Trust Institute, proposed six points for legislation: a focus on high-risk uses; upfront disclosure when a patient-facing tool uses AI; treating compliance with a recognised framework such as the NIST AI Risk Management Framework as satisfying an impact assessment; enforcement by the attorney general, with a chance to cure and no private right of action; no patient-by-patient consent and opt-out for each use of AI; and definitions consistent across states. Asked how the committee could contribute, she said “a general data privacy law would be a foundational starting point.”

Direction from the committee

Emily Hicks of the Legislative Council staff described Memo No. 1 (September 2026), which covers “sandbox” models, Wisconsin bills relating to consumer data privacy and artificial intelligence (among them 2025 Assembly Bill 172 and Senate Bill 166), and a National Conference of State Legislatures resource listing other states’ definitions of “artificial intelligence.” Asked by Matthew Harris how to approach the Wisconsin bills it lists, Margit Kelley and the chair said they “can be viewed as potential starting points for the committee’s discussions on those topics.”

The chair asked members to submit to staff their priorities for developing legislation or topics they would like to explore further, and stated that “in order to develop requests for preliminary draft legislation, the committee’s next meeting on October 1, 2026, will be a workshop on members’ priorities.”

Documents filed for this meeting

This list includes two submissions from committee members that the Legislative Council posted as materials distributed.

• Agenda archived · source
• Minutes archived · source
• Legislative Council Memo No. 1, “Overview of ‘Sandbox’ Models; Wisconsin Bills Relating to Consumer Data Privacy and Artificial Intelligence; and Other States’ Definitions of ‘Artificial Intelligence’” (September 2026) archived · source
• Materials from Dr. Justin Boge, committee member, “The Badger Lens” (sent to staff 20 and 24 August 2026) archived · source
• Commentary from Madeline Nevermann, committee member, on the 2025 NAIC report archived · source
• Griffin presentation on health care AI accreditation (URAC) archived · source
• Treankler presentation (Delta Dental of Wisconsin) archived · source
• Peterson presentation (The Alliance) archived · source
• Muhlbauer presentation (Lakeland Care, Inc.) archived · source
• Tarula presentation (UW–Madison School of Medicine and Public Health) archived · source
• Hayes presentation (Medical College of Wisconsin) archived · source
• Neilitz presentation (Nicolet College) archived · source
• Office of the Commissioner of Insurance presentation (Houdek, Smith, Manning and Boer) archived · source
• Wright presentation on AI in mental health care (American Psychological Association) archived · source
• Olson Grande presentation (Healthcare Trust Institute) archived · source