Federal AI Order vs. State Rules: What Healthcare IT Needs to Know Now
The White House issued a Dec. 11 executive order, Ensuring A National Policy Framework For Artificial Intelligence, that seeks to supersede state-led AI rules with a single federal approach. Many vendors support the move, arguing a unified standard beats a patchwork of conflicting policies.
States have been filling the gap while Congress stalls. The National Conference of State Legislatures is tracking more than 1,000 AI-related bills, with 200+ touching healthcare; roughly two dozen are now law. See current activity by state on the NCSL AI legislation tracker.
The order directs U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to form an AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state laws that conflict with national policy or impermissibly affect interstate commerce. It also instructs U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick to review state AI laws within 90 days and flag any that are "onerous and excessive" or inconsistent with federal direction.
States say they stepped in to protect patients and clarify responsibilities. "States do almost all the licensure for healthcare professionals. If AI is being used in the diagnostic space, who owns that?" asked Tennessee State Senator Bo Watson, noting state and local governments shoulder real operational responsibility.
The administration's stance: U.S. developers must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation. It argues state-by-state approaches create compliance burden, embed bias requirements into models, and reach beyond state borders. The goal stated in the order is a minimally burdensome national standard, not 50 discordant ones.
What this means for health systems, IT leaders, and developers
- Map your AI inventory. Separate low-risk administrative tools from higher-impact clinical systems. Align controls to risk tiers using established guidance such as the NIST AI Risk Management Framework.
- For high-impact use cases, tighten validation, monitoring, and human override. Log model outputs, decisions, and data sources. Require clear fallbacks when confidence or data quality drops.
- Standardize documentation. Maintain model cards, change logs, and deployment notes so you can adapt quickly whether federal preemption holds or state-specific overlays remain.
- Review privacy and data-sharing practices. Coordinate with compliance and counsel to ensure HIPAA alignment and assess how state privacy provisions might interact with a federal baseline.
- Update vendor contracts and BAAs. Add AI performance expectations, audit rights, incident reporting, and retraining triggers tied to clinical risk.
- Strengthen data quality and lineage. Reduce drift and leakage risks, and ensure traceability for audits or litigation.
- Build AI-specific incident response. Include patient safety events, model malfunctions, bias complaints, and coordinated disclosure processes.
- Prepare evidence trails. Keep evaluation sets, bias assessments, and post-market surveillance results organized for potential federal review.
Industry voices
"The current patchwork of state-level AI regulations poses real challenges for both health IT developers and the healthcare organizations we serve, particularly those operating in multiple states or treating patients from across state lines," said Leigh C. Burchell, VP of policy & public affairs at Altera Digital Health. A "logical, risk-based federal framework" could provide clear guardrails and maintain patient safety while meeting the expected pace of AI innovation.
Vital.io CEO Aaron Patzer put it bluntly: "In healthcare, regulatory fragmentation is not a nuisance; it is a threat. When every state sets its own AI rules, patients face unequal standards of care and critical innovations are stalled at the border. The nation cannot allow life-saving technology to be governed by a patchwork of conflicting policies."
Bill Charnetski, EVP of health system solutions and government affairs at PointClickCare, struck a collaborative note: "While the order creates conflict between states and the federal government over AI regulations, I'm confident all parties can reach consensus that collaboration, open communication and shared data should be standard."
Fold Health cofounder and CEO Abhi Gupta urged a practical lens: the best approach is "risk-based and operationally usable," with lighter-touch expectations for low-risk administrative automation and stronger guardrails for clinical workflows-validation, auditability, security, and clear human override. The aim: predictable standards that accelerate safe adoption and preserve trust.
Key questions to watch
- How aggressively will the AI Litigation Task Force assert preemption, and which state healthcare provisions will it challenge first?
- What definitions will the administration use for "ideological bias" and where is the line on interstate commerce for AI delivered via cloud services?
- Will federal agencies provide transitional guidance to avoid disruption while the Commerce review (90 days) and any legal actions play out?
- How will this interact with FDA oversight for clinical AI, ONC information blocking rules, and OCR enforcement on privacy?
Practical next step: plan for a federal baseline with toggles for state-specific overlays. Build "policy as configuration" into your MLOps and governance so you can adapt without halting deployments.
If your team is upskilling for safer AI deployment, see role-specific learning paths at Complete AI Training.
Your membership also unlocks:
