This year, Governor Brian Kemp of Georgia signed comprehensive tort reform legislation into law. As other states watch Georgia’s implementation closely, healthcare providers nationwide are grappling with what these reforms mean for their operations and revenue cycle management. We sat down with Martin Drake, Deputy General Counsel at Aspirion, to discuss the key provisions of Georgia’s tort reform, its immediate operational impacts, and why providers across the country need to pay attention.
Q: Georgia passed comprehensive tort reform legislation. Can you walk us through what actually happened and when it took effect?
Martin Drake: Absolutely. This year, Governor Brian Kemp signed Georgia’s comprehensive tort reform legislation into law through Senate Bills 68 and 69. This represents the most significant changes to Georgia’s tort system in nearly two decades. Most provisions took effect immediately upon signing on April 21, 2025, or apply to cases filed after that date. The waiting period is over—what was once a contentious political battle is now binding legal reality.
Q: What’s the most significant change for healthcare providers?
Martin Drake: The “truth-in-damages” provision is arguably the game-changer. For the first time, juries can now see both what hospitals billed and what insurance companies actually paid for medical treatment. Previously, juries only saw the full billed charges, regardless of whether the charges had been satisfied by insurance or out of pocket payments, which proponents of tort reform argued led to a windfall for injured patients. Now jurors can see evidence of payments of hospital bills and decide how to award to injured patients for their special damages. That’s important for healthcare providers because if patients are now going to potentially recover lower amounts in settlements and/or jury verdicts for their medical bills incurred after accidents, that affects reimbursement to the providers from the settlements/verdicts.
Q: How does this elimination of “phantom damages” impact hospital operations?
Martin Drake: The operational implications are significant and immediate. The tort reform law only allows evidence of actual payment of medical bills for injured patients with health insurance, so what happens in the case of an uninsured patient? As Georgia law allows for discovery into reimbursement rates that hospitals accept from private and public payors, it is anticipated that defense attorneys will seek to introduce evidence for jurors to see reimbursement rates that hospitals regularly accept from payors such as BCBS or Medicare to determine if an uninsured patient’s medical bills are “reasonable” for the purpose of awarding special damages.
Georgia defense lawyers will likely try to argue, and Georgia courts will have to decide, if the new tort reform law allows evidence to be shown to the jury of reimbursement rates in an effort to lower jury verdicts for uninsured patients. This would directly affect the ability of Georgia hospitals to recover their charges from injured patients pursuant to hospital liens. Georgia hospitals file hospital liens for the full chargemaster rates for uninsured injured patients and often have to negotiate reduced amounts to satisfy the billed charges, so the new tort reform law has the potential to further limit the amounts that hospitals may recover for treating patients regardless of their ability to pay for treatment..
Q: Are there concerns about damage caps limiting patient rights?
Martin Drake: That’s one of the most important aspects of this legislation—it explicitly states that it does NOT place a cap on jury awards. The law preserves jury decision-making authority while requiring that pain and suffering arguments be tied to actual evidence. Juries retain full authority to determine appropriate awards based on the actual circumstances of each case. The key change is eliminating arbitrary benchmarks like professional athletes’ salaries or military equipment costs from damage arguments. However, the Personal Injury Bar has argued that this new law will allow tortfeasors to benefit from injured patients having health insurance through lower verdicts—if juries can only see the actual reimbursement amounts to providers, the tortfeasor receives a windfall through lower damages awarded in a verdict according to this view.
Q: What changes should healthcare providers expect in litigation timelines?
Martin Drake: Healthcare providers should expect longer settlement timelines as attorneys and insurance companies adjust to this new framework. The legislation includes bifurcation provisions that allow trials to be split into separate liability and damages phases. While this potentially extends litigation periods, it also provides opportunities for earlier resolution if liability is disputed. Additionally, there’s now a 60-day limit on voluntary dismissals, down from allowing dismissals until the first witness is sworn, which should reduce strategic gamesmanship and provide more certainty for defendants.
Q: How do the third-party litigation funding reforms affect healthcare cases?
Martin Drake: The third-party funding reforms are comprehensive and immediately impactful. Georgia now prohibits foreign entities from funding litigation and requires domestic funders to register with the Department of Banking and Finance. Importantly, litigation funders can no longer direct case strategy and must indemnify plaintiffs for recoverable fees and costs unless misconduct occurs. For healthcare providers, this means funded cases against hospitals and healthcare systems will be managed and resolved differently, with less external influence on case strategy.
Q: What about premises liability for healthcare facilities?
Martin Drake: The new negligent security provisions establish that healthcare facilities are only liable for what they directly control. Property owners must have “actual knowledge” that third-party wrongful conduct is likely to occur within a reasonable timeframe. This replaces the broader “totality of circumstances” standard that considered all prior incidents on or near the property. For hospitals and medical facilities, this provides clearer liability boundaries while maintaining accountability for safe patient and visitor environments. The law also requires fault to be apportioned among all responsible parties, including perpetrators, security companies, and property owners.
Q: Looking at the national picture, what implications does Georgia’s reform have for other states?
Martin Drake: Georgia’s successful passage has positioned the state as a potential model for other jurisdictions dealing with rising insurance costs and “nuclear” verdicts. States across the nation are closely monitoring Georgia’s implementation, particularly the truth-in-damages provisions and third-party funding restrictions, as potential templates for their own reform efforts. The legislation’s focus on transparency rather than damage caps represents a new approach that may prove more legally sustainable than previous reform attempts.
Q: Are other states likely to follow Georgia’s lead?
Martin Drake: Absolutely. Other states considering tort reform will likely study Georgia’s outcomes closely, particularly regarding insurance premium impacts and access to justice concerns. As Georgia’s experience unfolds, healthcare providers nationwide should prepare for similar reforms that could fundamentally alter how medical liability cases are litigated and resolved.
Q: What should healthcare providers be doing right now to prepare?
Martin Drake: Providers need to adapt operational practices to maximize the benefits of this new legal framework while ensuring their revenue cycle management accounts for these fundamental changes in how damages are calculated and presented. If Georgia defense attorneys are now allowed to routinely put hospital’s chargemaster rates on trial in personal injury litigation, providers will need to be prepared to explain how chargemaster rates are calculated and justify the necessity of those rates. Hospitals have a duty under the Federal EMTALA law to stabilize or screen patients regardless of their ability to pay for treatment, and while they do accept lesser amounts from private and public payors, they have the benefit of prompt payment and volume with those payors. As always, healthcare providers should consult with their legal counsel to discuss these issues and respond accordingly.
Successfully navigating tort reform requires sophisticated revenue cycle management and legal expertise. As other states consider similar reforms, providers nationwide must prepare for fundamental shifts in medical damages and hospital charge defense. Contact us today to learn how Aspirion helps hospitals unlock high-value revenue from denied and complex claims—without operational burden.
