Electronic Winter 2025 | Issue 65

State Legislative Update

By: Mark Peysakhovich, IPS Legislative Consultant

Illinois legislation makes national headlines in 2025

This has been a big year for mental health-related legislation in Illinois. Several major bills passed by the General Assembly have generated national and international attention and stirred up controversy. The true impact of these policies will play out over many years to come and will largely depend on implementation. In the meantime, I am sharing my personal take on the three top issues which I’ve been hearing about lately.

School mental health testing requirements: 

Earlier this year, Illinois’ Governor signed legislation that some describe as a mandate requiring students in grades 3-12 to receive school mental health screenings. This first-of-its-kind state law is slated to go into effect during the 2027-2028 school year. However, how or if it will be implemented by local school boards depends on regional, cultural, and political philosophies as well as future funding, procedural guidance, and materials the state is obligated to provide. Once schools do implement the screening, parents or guardians will have the choice of opting kids out.

Proponents argue that, just like hearing and vision tests kids already get in schools, this is a logical and necessary preventive step that is important to a child’s overall health and wellbeing. On the other hand, opponents argue that this law is intrusive and a misguided government overreach infringing on parental rights.

So far, this debate has generated more “heat than light.” Personally, I think the biggest unanswered question is not about the screenings themselves but about the follow-up. As one psychiatrist recently said, “The patient pipeline is already full. What are they actually going to do to help at risk kids?”

AI/Chatbot Therapy Ban:     

Another bill signed into law by Governor JB Pritzker this year limits the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in therapy and psychotherapy. Under the new law, AI cannot be used for clinical decision-making. It can be used as an administrative and support tool for licensed providers. Illinois joins a few other states with similar laws.

After this legislation had already passed the Illinois General Assembly, several companies that were developing mental health chatbots finally spoke up when they realized that they were about to be banned here. The gist of their argument seemed to be that while chatbots are not perfect, they are better than nothing for a large and growing number of users who either cannot or choose not to get other help.   

Given the shortages in mental health services and the growing presence of AI in our lives, these are compelling points. However, it was too little too late and overall unsuccessful lobbying strategy. 

I assume the mental health AI companies learned their lesson and that they’re going to be back in 2026 (with lobbyists) to try push back on this law. In the meantime, let’s see how this law is implemented. The lawyers are already contemplating what constitutes illegal “AI therapy” vs. a chatbot with a cute name that merely helps with relaxation.

Medical Aid in Dying:     

During the recent fall Veto Session, lawmakers passed the End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act. The bill is now on Gov. Pritzker’s desk. He will decide whether to sign it into law in the coming weeks.

If the bill is enacted by Gov. Pritzker, Illinois would join about a dozen other states that allow medically assisted dying (medical aid in dying). Illinois’ law generally follows the established template, providing that terminally ill, mentally competent adults with six months or less to live can self-administer prescribed medication after satisfying many requirements and passing multiple evaluations. This bill creates strict safeguards, requires two physician confirmations of a terminal diagnosis, ensures patients can choose hospice/palliative care, and grants immunity to participating providers.

This was a hugely controversial issue in Springfield that pitted traditional allies against each other. On one side, families, caregivers, and many terminally ill patients see this as an issue of mercy, compassion, and personal rights. On the other side, advocates for seniors and people with disabilities fear that this is the beginning of a slippery slope providing a legal pathway in situations where care becomes too expensive, burdensome, or inconvenient.

As you can imagine, there is no shortage of strong, passionate and well-reasoned arguments of all kinds from different perspectives. So, I will spare you from my opinion. Should this bill become law, as IPS lobbyist, I will be paying close attention on how a patient’s “mental competence” is going to be established.