Members of the Florida House Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee unanimously approved HB 947, initiating a change to the state’s approach to healthcare insurance lawsuits. The bill, which addresses a law passed in 2023 affecting lawsuit abuses in Florida, seeks to refine the existing framework.
Supporters of HB 947 say it corrects confusion over the 2023 law with modest but vital tweaks, mainly swapping the word “may” for “shall.” They argue the change offers flexibility to all parties involved in a case by allowing them to include all pertinent information. Opponents, however, contend that it will remove instrumental guidance on mandatory information for a case and discourage unreasonable claims.
Miami Republican Rep. Omar Blanco, the bill’s sponsor, believes HB 947 “promotes consistency, clarity and trust in Florida’s legal system.”
“I’m on no side of anybody but the people who are suffering and to do justice for what has transpired,” he said. “A couple years ago, this took a turn for the worse, and now we’re looking to right that and take a path to a better solution for everybody.”
HB 947 attempts to refine how courts evaluate evidence by allowing for evidence demonstrating the actual value of medical treatments or services, rather than adhering to predefined criteria. This change would also permit evidence concerning health care coverage obligations, reasonable and customary rates, and amounts paid under a letter of protection (LOP). Similar types of evidence would be admissible for future medical services.
Davie Democratic Rep. Mike Gottlieb, who is also a lawyer, believes this is important because Medicare and Medicaid rates “are generally significantly lower than what is reasonable and customary” and aren’t ideal benchmarks. “Anybody on the defense can bring in the Medicaid or Medicare if they believe that’s reasonable or customary, and a jury can see and hear that evidence,” he said. “This is a better bill. I think we got it wrong in 2023. I think we’re fixing it now.”
Rep. Vanessa Oliver, a Republican from Punta Gorda and a former ambulance company CEO, agreed that “health care rates are all over the place” and that the “government-imposed rate is the floor,” in terms of cost. “Juries need to see every single (data point and cost) and hear all the relevant testimony so they can make a good, informed decision,” she said.
During the committee meeting, opposing viewpoints from organizations and companies were presented. Opponents included the Florida Insurance Council, The Doctors Company, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, State Farm, Publix, American Property Casualty Insurance Association, Uber, Personal Insurance Federation of Florida and Associated Industries of Florida.
Laurette Balinsky of the Florida Justice Reform Institute said the bill would “undo all the good progress (Florida) made on transparency and damages since 2023,” arguing that health care costs have fallen since Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the 2023 bill (HB 837). Ellin Kunz, a certified medical auditor with Associated Industries of Florida, shared her view that courts were previously lacking guidance on what constitutes reasonable value of health care, but that the 2023 law established objective benchmarks.
Waylon Thomson of the Florida Justice Association noted that HB 837’s intent was to allow juries to hear all available evidence from both sides. Thompson also noted what he felt were conflicts within the law’s language by citing conflicting sections of Statute 768.0427. The Florida Medical Association, Florida Chiropractic Association and Anthony Albert, an orthopedic surgeon, supported HB 947 at the meeting.
Following the measure’s advancement, Mark Wilson of the Florida Chamber of Commerce issued a statement expressing disappointment. He contended that the bill undermines progress in rebalancing Florida’s civil justice system and allows for the inflation of verdicts.
HB 947 will proceed to the House Judiciary Committee, its final stop before the House floor. Its companion bill in the Senate (SB 1520), sponsored by Sen. Erin Grall, awaits a hearing before its first committee.
