Executive Summary
- Texas now requires healthcare providers to tell patients when artificial intelligence (AI) is used in their care. Senate Bill 1188 requires healthcare practitioners to disclose AI use for diagnostic and treatment purposes, and TRAIGA adds additional requirements on how these disclosures must be presented to patients.
- Neither Senate Bill 1188 nor TRAIGA provides a model for disclosure, so healthcare providers using AI must build their own standardized compliance strategies, documentation, enforcement, and training practices.
- While neither statute immediately opens a new avenue for lawsuits against providers, the most immediate risk remains regulatory compliance and enforcement. Long-term, these statutes may provide a benchmark to evaluate provider communications and AI governance practices against.
- As healthcare organizations continue adopting AI, disclosure practices should become a routine part of compliance planning. Providers that identify AI use cases, establish standardized disclosures, and incorporate transparency into patient communications will be better positioned to navigate an evolving regulatory landscape.
Do Doctors Have to Disclose AI Use? The Laws on AI and Healthcare Work are Changing in Texas
Artificial intelligence is becoming increasingly integrated into healthcare delivery. Providers now use AI-assisted technologies to analyze diagnostic imaging, generate treatment recommendations, identify patients at elevated risk of adverse outcomes, support documentation, and enhance clinical decision-making.
As the use of these technologies expands, Texas lawmakers have emphasized patient transparency. Recent legislative developments suggest that one of the most significant compliance questions surrounding healthcare AI is no longer whether providers may use artificial intelligence, but what patients must be told when they do.
The 89th Texas Legislature adopted two significant laws addressing the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare. First, Senate Bill 1188 became effective on September 1, 2025, and established new requirements governing electronic health records and the use of artificial intelligence in patient care. Shortly thereafter, the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (“TRAIGA”) became effective on January 1, 2026, creating a broader framework governing the development, deployment, and use of artificial intelligence across industries, including healthcare.
Taken together, these laws establish what is effectively a dual transparency framework for healthcare providers using artificial intelligence. Senate Bill 1188 requires healthcare practitioners to disclose the use of AI for diagnostic and treatment purposes, while TRAIGA imposes additional requirements governing how those disclosures must be presented to patients.
Texas Is Moving Toward a Transparency-Based Approach to AI Regulation
Much of the early discussion surrounding artificial intelligence focused on whether AI systems are accurate, reliable, and safe. Now, lawmakers are also addressing transparency.
The underlying policy concern is straightforward. Patients may reasonably want to know whether artificial intelligence contributed to a diagnosis, treatment recommendation, risk assessment, or other clinical determination that affects their care.
Texas’s recent AI legislation reflects the view that transparency promotes patient autonomy, informed decision-making, and trust in the healthcare system.
Senate Bill 1188 Creates a New Disclosure Obligation
Senate Bill 1188 permits healthcare practitioners to utilize artificial intelligence technologies for diagnostic and treatment-related purposes. At the same time, it requires disclosure when artificial intelligence is used in connection with diagnosis or treatment.
Although the statute does not prescribe a specific disclosure form, it creates a new compliance obligation that many healthcare organizations have never previously addressed. Practically speaking, providers should assume that disclosure is required when AI is used to:
- Assist in diagnosis;
- Generate treatment recommendations;
- Analyze patient information used for treatment decisions;
- Support clinical decision-making; or
- Otherwise contribute to diagnosis or treatment planning.
The statute reflects a simple principle: patients should know when artificial intelligence plays a role in significant healthcare decisions affecting their care.
Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA) Expands Texas Transparency Requirements
TRAIGA builds upon this transparency framework and provides additional direction regarding how disclosures should be made.
Under TRAIGA, healthcare providers using AI in connection with diagnosis, prevention, or treatment must provide disclosure to patients or their personal representatives. Importantly, the law goes beyond simply requiring disclosure. It also addresses the manner in which disclosures should be presented.
According to the statute, disclosures should be:
- Clear and conspicuous;
- Written in plain language;
- Free from misleading or manipulative design features;
- Presented before services are provided whenever feasible; and
- Designed to allow patients to understand the role of AI in the service being delivered.
The focus is not merely on whether disclosure occurs. The focus is whether patients can reasonably understand the information being provided.
What Should Providers Be Disclosing When Using AI in Healthcare?
Neither Senate Bill 1188 nor TRAIGA currently provides a model disclosure form. As a result, many healthcare organizations are attempting to determine what information should be communicated to patients.
Although each organization should evaluate its specific circumstances, providers should consider whether disclosures address the following points:
Minimum Components
- AI may be used in connection with the patient’s care.
- AI may assist with diagnosis, treatment recommendations, monitoring, documentation, or risk assessment.
- The technology functions as a clinical-support tool.
- A licensed healthcare practitioner reviews relevant information.
- The practitioner remains responsible for medical decision-making.
Additional Information Some Providers May Consider
- The categories of AI tools being used.
- Whether AI contributes to documentation or administrative processes.
- When AI-generated recommendations are reviewed by clinicians.
- How patient information is protected when AI technologies are utilized.
The goal is not to overwhelm patients with technical information. The goal is to provide meaningful transparency regarding AI’s role in the care process.
Where Should AI Disclosure in Healthcare Be Provided?
Many organizations are now evaluating how disclosure should be incorporated into existing workflows. Potential locations include:
- Patient Intake Documents
- Consent Forms
- Patient Portals
Many providers will likely choose a combination of:
- General AI disclosure at intake;
- More specific disclosures when AI is heavily involved in diagnosis or treatment;
- Supporting information made available through patient portals or websites.
The Principal Risk Is Not a New Cause of Action
One of the most common questions healthcare providers ask is whether Senate Bill 1188 or TRAIGA creates a new avenue for patient lawsuits. The answer is generally no. Neither statute creates a standalone private right of action for patients based solely on a provider’s failure to disclose the use of artificial intelligence.
That does not mean the disclosure requirements lack legal significance. Senate Bill 1188 establishes a statutory obligation to disclose the use of AI in connection with diagnosis and treatment, while TRAIGA authorizes enforcement by the Texas Attorney General and establishes specific requirements regarding how those disclosures must be presented. Together, the statutes create a legislative framework that places increasing emphasis on patient transparency.
As AI becomes more integrated into healthcare delivery, plaintiffs may attempt to point to disclosure failures in disputes involving informed consent, patient communication, or professional negligence. Likewise, licensing boards and other regulators may consider whether providers complied with applicable disclosure obligations when evaluating professional conduct.
From a practical perspective, the most immediate risk remains regulatory compliance and enforcement. The longer-term significance may be that these statutes provide a benchmark against which provider communications and AI governance practices are evaluated. As a result, healthcare organizations should view AI disclosure not merely as a compliance requirement, but as part of a broader effort to promote patient trust and transparency in AI-assisted care.
Practical Steps Healthcare Organizations Should Take Now Regarding AI in Healthcare
Healthcare organizations adopting AI should consider establishing a formal disclosure strategy. A practical compliance checklist may include:
Patient Communications
- Develop standardized AI disclosures.
- Determine when disclosures should be provided.
AI Disclosure Training
- Train providers regarding disclosure obligations.
- Train staff responsible for patient intake and registration.
- Ensure personnel understand when additional disclosures may be necessary.
Documentation
- Maintain records of disclosure practices.
- Document practitioner review of AI-generated recommendations where appropriate.
- Periodically review compliance procedures as AI use expands.
Looking Ahead – The Future of AI and Healthcare in Texas
The message from Texas lawmakers is clear: healthcare providers may use artificial intelligence, but patients should be informed when artificial intelligence plays a role in their care.
As organizations continue adopting AI-enabled technologies, disclosure practices should become a routine part of implementation and compliance planning. Providers that identify AI use cases, establish standardized disclosures, and incorporate transparency into patient communications will be better positioned to navigate an evolving regulatory landscape.
Ultimately, the issue is not whether artificial intelligence will become part of healthcare delivery—it already has. The question is whether healthcare organizations are prepared to communicate that use to patients in a manner consistent with emerging legal requirements and patient expectations.
FAQs
Q: Do Texas healthcare providers have to tell patients when they use AI?
A: Yes. Under Senate Bill 1188, effective September 1, 2025, healthcare practitioners must disclose the use of artificial intelligence when it is used in connection with a patient’s diagnosis or treatment. TRAIGA (House Bill 149), effective January 1, 2026, adds requirements governing how that disclosure must be presented. Together, the two laws establish a dual transparency framework for AI in healthcare.
Q: Do Texas’s AI disclosure laws create a new basis for patients to sue?
A: Generally, no, a patient cannot sue in Texas over AI disclosure by a healthcare provider. Neither SB 1188 nor TRAIGA creates a standalone private right of action for patients based solely on a provider’s failure to disclose the use of AI. However, TRAIGA authorizes enforcement by the Texas Attorney General, SB 1188 carries civil penalties, and disclosure failures may surface in informed-consent, professional-negligence, or licensing-board matters. The most immediate exposure is regulatory and enforcement, not private litigation.
Q: What should healthcare organizations do now to comply with new AI disclosure requirements?
A: Establish a formal disclosure strategy before enforcement pressure builds. That means developing standardized AI disclosures, deciding where they belong in existing workflows, training providers and registration staff on when disclosure is required, and maintaining records of both disclosure practices and clinician review of AI-influenced recommendations.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog/article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While we strive to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to the blog/article or the information for any purpose. The content of this blog is intended to convey general information and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts, or settlements. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk. The content is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your state.
Your use of the information in this blog/article does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Elena Villasenor Sullivan or Endereza Law, PLLC. Contacting us through this blog does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established. Unless otherwise stated, the attorneys listed on this blog are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.
