Aging with Artificial Intelligence Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 24, 2026
Bottom line
The bill initiates a federal study and research effort to understand and address the benefits and risks of artificial intelligence for older adults, leveraging existing appropriations.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the National Institute on Aging, to contract with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine for a comprehensive study on the effects of artificial intelligence-enabled systems on older adults. The study will analyze usage patterns, potential risks like fraud and misinformation, safety safeguards, and impacts on caregivers. Additionally, the bill directs the National Institute on Aging to facilitate multidisciplinary research and disseminate best practices related to AI use by older adults, with a maximum allocation of $2 million from existing funds for the study.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is a crucial proactive measure to ensure that the rapid development and adoption of artificial intelligence technologies consider the unique needs, vulnerabilities, and potential benefits for older adults. They contend it will help prevent scams, fraud, and misinformation while promoting beneficial uses for communication, caregiving, cognitive engagement, and aging in place, ultimately improving health and well-being for a growing demographic.
Opponents contend
Critics, if any, might argue that the bill's provisions could duplicate existing research efforts or that the allocated funds, even if from existing appropriations, could be more effectively deployed for direct services or other pressing research priorities for older adults. Some might also contend that the scope of the study or the timeline for reporting is either too broad or too narrow to effectively keep pace with the evolving AI landscape.
The bill is very short and clear, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its provisions and implications quickly.
Section 2
Study on the Effects of Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Systems on Older Adults
This section requires the Department of Health and Human Services, specifically through the National Institute on Aging, to commission a study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The study will examine how older adults use AI systems, the benefits they gain (like improved access to information or support for caregivers), and the risks they face (such as scams, misinformation, or overreliance). It also mandates an assessment of safety, accessibility, privacy, and fraud prevention measures in AI systems used by older adults.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this study is essential to proactively address the unique challenges and opportunities AI presents for older adults, a demographic often overlooked in technology development. They believe it will provide critical data to inform policy, protect vulnerable populations, and ensure AI is developed responsibly to enhance quality of life.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against commissioning a study of this nature, as it is generally seen as a prudent step for understanding emerging technologies. Potential mild concerns might revolve around the scope or the perceived urgency compared to other immediate needs.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for comprehensive research into a complex, rapidly evolving field with the urgency of addressing potential harms and maximizing benefits for older adults. It also navigates the tension between broad applicability of AI and the specific needs of a diverse older adult population, including those with cognitive impairments or disabilities.
Section 3
Aging Research to Improve Care and Health Outcomes for Older Adults
This section amends the Public Health Service Act to direct the National Institute on Aging (NIA) to actively promote and coordinate research, stakeholder engagement, and the sharing of best practices concerning older adults' use of AI-enabled systems. It aims to foster ongoing scientific inquiry and practical application of knowledge in this area, beyond the initial study mandated in Section 2. The NIA is also required to report to Congress on these activities within one year.
The funding for the study mandated in Section 2 is capped at $2,000,000 for fiscal years 2027 and 2028 and must come from amounts 'otherwise appropriated to the Secretary of Health and Human Services'.
Section 2(f)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for specifying funding sources and limits, often placed at the end of a section detailing a program or study. It clarifies that this is not new appropriations but a directive for how existing funds should be used.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this demonstrates fiscal responsibility by not requiring new spending, making the bill more palatable and easier to pass. It ensures the study can proceed without adding to the national deficit.
Case against: Critics might argue that by relying on 'otherwise appropriated' funds, the bill could potentially divert resources from other important HHS or NIA initiatives, effectively creating an unfunded mandate on existing budgets. The cap might also be seen as insufficient for a truly comprehensive study given the complexity of AI.
Estimated impact: Directs a maximum of $2,000,000 from existing HHS funds for the study over two fiscal years.