Both pillars
Artificial Intelligence
Wisconsin is about to write its first real AI statute. The question it starts with is not whether AI is used, but who is accountable when the model decides.
Where this stands
Wisconsin insurers already operate under an AI mandate with no statute behind it.
The Office of the Commissioner of Insurance issued a bulletin in March 2025 telling insurers to maintain a written program for responsible AI use. It is binding on the industry and it is not law — it is guidance, issued by an agency, revisable by the next commissioner.
AB 1109 would have put the core of it in statute, barring insurers from denying prior authorization on an AI determination alone without a licensed human reviewing it. It arrived ten days before the session ended and died with it. Three other AI bills moved through the same session: deepfake sexual-image protections were signed, while companion-chatbot child-safety rules and algorithmic rent-setting restrictions both failed.
Who is in the room
A committee is drafting the standard now — for health care and insurance.
The Study Committee on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care is chaired by Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara with Rep. Adam Neylon as vice-chair. The Joint Legislative Council directed it to consider three things specifically: AI in the patient–provider relationship, AI between insurers or medical assistance programs and patients, and AI between those payers and providers — which is where coverage decisions are made.
It is not writing on a blank page. Wisconsin ran an AI study committee in 2024, and its report recommended focusing on data rather than on AI itself, and prioritizing high-risk uses over comprehensive legislation.
Worth correcting, because national trackers get it wrong: the “AI Regulatory Review Council” proposed in ASA4 was ruled non-germane and never adopted. Wisconsin does not have one, whatever a fifty-state chart may say.
Our position
Accountability that names a human, not a moratorium.
A rule that says a licensed human must stand behind an adverse decision is enforceable, survives a change of administration, and does not require anyone to guess which model was used. A broad prohibition on “AI in health care” would not survive contact with how care is actually delivered, and would be repealed or ignored.
The seats on this question are unusually empty. On AB 1109 neither the Wisconsin Hospital Association nor the State Medical Society registered a position at all. The middle of this argument is unoccupied, and it is where a nonpartisan business league can be useful to both caucuses.
Bill numbers, votes and committee composition are drawn from the Wisconsin Legislature and Legislative Council records; lobbying registrations from Wisconsin Ethics Commission filings. See the legislative tracker for live bill status, or the full agenda for how this fits the two pillars.