Health-care providers must disclose the use of AI in patient services
Download: JSON · MarkdownUnder Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA), Business and Commerce Code Section 551.051
What this label means
- Verified
- — a named reviewer opened the official source and confirmed the record; the date and the reviewer are shown.
- Pending review
- — linked to the official source and in the queue for a reviewer to confirm.
- Source-linked
- — linked to the official source, not yet confirmed by a reviewer.
On this page 9 sections
In brief
Health-care providers must disclose the use of AI in patient services is a legal requirement under the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA) in Texas (United States) (Business and Commerce Code Section 551.051). It applies from 1 January 2026. The record carries 1 evidence example and mappings to 2 frameworks.
- Instrument
- Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA)
- Jurisdiction
- Texas (United States)
- Nature
- Legal requirement
- Source reference
- Business and Commerce Code Section 551.051
- Applies from
- 1 January 2026
- Who it binds
- Deployer / user organisation
- Evidence examples
- 1
- Framework mappings
- NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0, ISO/IEC 42001:2023
- Controls that meet it
- 2
- Official source
- Open official text
- Verification
- Verified against the official source 26 Sep 2026
What does it require?
A person who provides health-care services or treatment and uses an AI system in relation to those services must disclose that use to the patient, or to the patient's personal representative or guardian, no later than the date the service or treatment is first provided, with an exception for emergencies where the disclosure is made as soon as reasonably possible. The disclosure must be clear, conspicuous and in plain language.
Practical action
Add an AI-use statement to intake and consent materials for services that use AI, with an emergency-follow-up rule.
Who does it apply to?
Health-care service and treatment providers in Texas that use AI in relation to patient services.
- Sectors
- Healthcare and life sciences
Applies from:
Which controls meet this duty?
Satisfies: the control, operated properly, does the work the duty asks for. Supports: it contributes but the duty needs more. Each control page lists every other duty it serves, so work done once can be counted once.
-
satisfiesProcessProduct owner · at launch and on material changeAI interaction and use disclosure notices
Serves 18 recorded duties · evidence: AI interaction or use notice, Notice catalogue, Notice wording approval
Patient-facing disclosure before first service.
-
supportsProcessAI governance lead · continuousAI system inventory and classification
Serves 11 recorded duties · evidence: AI system register, Risk-tier classification sign-off, AI intake and classification procedure
Identifies clinical and administrative systems that use AI.
Templates that cover this duty
Generated from the records. Free · no account · links emailed to your work address. This duty is cited in each file with its source reference and a link back here.
- AI Agent Registry and Permission Matrix
Register · XLSX and DOCX · v6
- EU AI Act Article 50 Transparency Kit
Kit · DOCX and XLSX · v44
- ISO/IEC 42001 Gap Assessment and Statement of Applicability
Assessment · XLSX · v3
- NIST AI RMF ↔ EU AI Act ↔ ISO/IEC 42001 Crosswalk
Crosswalk · XLSX · v5
What evidence would a reviewer expect?
| Evidence | Type | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Patient AI-use disclosure in intake or consent documents | document |
Framework mappings
Original editorial crosswalks. They cite clause numbers only and reproduce no standard text; confidence reflects how direct the mapping is.
See every Texas (United States) duty mapped this way →
| Framework | Reference | Note | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| NIST AI RMF 1.0 | GOVERN 5.1, MANAGE 4.1 | Transparency to affected individuals. | medium |
| ISO/IEC 42001:2023 | Annex A.8.5 | Information for interested parties. | medium |
Frequently asked questions
Is this a legal requirement?
Yes. It is a legal requirement under Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA) (Business and Commerce Code Section 551.051).
Who must comply with this obligation?
Health-care service and treatment providers in Texas that use AI in relation to patient services.
When does this obligation apply?
It applies from 1 January 2026.
What evidence shows compliance?
A reviewer would expect: Patient AI-use disclosure in intake or consent documents.
Which frameworks map to this obligation?
It is mapped to NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0 GOVERN 5.1, MANAGE 4.1, ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Annex A.8.5. These are editorial crosswalks with a stated confidence, not official mappings.
Which controls satisfy this obligation?
AI interaction and use disclosure notices; AI system inventory and classification.
What should an organisation do in practice?
Add an AI-use statement to intake and consent materials for services that use AI, with an emergency-follow-up rule.
Cite this record
AIPolicyTracker (2026). “Health-care providers must disclose the use of AI in patient services (Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA))” [AIPT-OBL-0105, verified 26 September 2026 by Bhaskar Bhatt]. https://aipolicytracker.org/id/AIPT-OBL-0105 (accessed 8 November 2026). Data licensed CC BY 4.0.
Permanent id AIPT-OBL-0105: it never changes or gets reused, and its address keeps working if this page moves.
Cite the official text alongside it: HB 149 (89R) history and enrolled text, Texas Legislature Online, https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=HB149.
BibTeX
@misc{aipolicytracker2026_healthcareprovidersmustd,
author = {{AIPolicyTracker}},
title = {{Health-care providers must disclose the use of AI in patient services (Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA))}},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-texas-responsible-ai-governance-act-traiga-health-care-ai-disclosure}},
url = {https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-texas-responsible-ai-governance-act-traiga-health-care-ai-disclosure},
urldate = {2026-11-08},
note = {Data licensed CC BY 4.0. Accessed 8 November 2026}
}
Change history
No change to this record's tracked fields has been recorded since 15 October 2026, when field-level history began.
Similar obligations in other instruments
- Employers must inform workers and their representatives before using high-risk AI at work — EU AI Act, European Union
- Disclose AI interaction and label synthetic content — EU AI Act, European Union
- Deployers must tell natural persons that a high-risk AI system is used in decisions about them — EU AI Act, European Union
- Deployers of emotion recognition or biometric categorisation must inform exposed persons — EU AI Act, European Union
- Deployers must disclose deepfakes and AI-generated text published on matters of public interest — EU AI Act, European Union
- Providers of generative AI must mark synthetic output as artificially generated in a machine-readable way — EU AI Act, European Union
- Deployers must explain individual decisions taken with high-risk AI on request — EU AI Act, European Union
- Frontier developers must publish a transparency report before deploying a new frontier model — California SB 53, California (United States)
Disclaimer: informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult a qualified lawyer before acting.