Sorry, I don't understand, this seems like a straightforward ban:

Its operative language says a chatbot proprietor may not let the chatbot provide a substantive response, information, advice, or take an action that, if done by a natural person, would constitute unauthorized practice or unauthorized use of a professional title under specified provisions of the Education Law or Judiciary Law.

My understanding is that giving "substantive medical advice" is "unauthorized practice" and as such is banned. That's what the tweet above says, pretty straightforwardly. The tweet is pretty clear that it is only including "substantive responses", so I don't think anyone is being misled.

I would be in favor of it saying "effective ban", but honestly, it's so close to just a straightforward direct ban that I think the current thing is totally fine. To be clear, the bill is directly banning AI systems giving substantive medical advice. The bill is quite clear that a disclaimer would not be sufficient, and AI systems would only be allowed to discuss general health considerations. Any kind of personalized medical advice would be banned, no matter what disclaimers you use.

On disclaimers, the bill literally says:

proprietor may not waive or disclaim this liability merely by notifying consumers that they are interacting with a non-human chatbot system.

My guess is if you look at the politicians who have been proposing this, they will also refer to this as "a ban on chatbots giving medical advice". I haven't looked this up, but I am a bit above 50% that the supporting side also thinks about this as a ban.