Georgia’s recent passage of Senate Bills 68 and 69 isn’t happening in a vacuum. In Texas, lawmakers advanced SB 30—a bill with strikingly similar provisions and justifications. Across the country, a pattern is emerging: legislation that seeks to limit damages, redefine reimbursement, and expand disclosure requirements is gaining traction in Republican-led states under the banner of “transparency” and “tort reform.”
These bills may differ in language and scope, but they often echo the same themes—and sometimes even the same phrasing. They’re backed by many of the same industry groups, particularly from the insurance and business sectors, which have long lobbied for reduced liability and tighter controls on legal claims. Whether through shared ideology, model legislation, or behind-the-scenes lobbying, the result is a growing patchwork of laws that reflect a common agenda.
What’s at stake isn’t just legal procedure—it’s access to care, the viability of small healthcare practices, and the rights of plaintiffs in personal injury cases.
Here, I’ll unpack the similarities across these state-level reforms, highlight their shared origin points, and explain why the consequences could be national in scale—even if the legislation is local.
Shared Legislative Themes Across States
Earlier this year, Georgia enacted SB 68, introducing caps on non-economic damages and changes to premises liability standards. Shortly thereafter, Texas proposed similar legislation. These laws often aim to reduce litigation costs and limit large jury awards—purportedly to foster a more “business-friendly” environment.
Florida’s 2023 tort reform package, championed by Governor Ron DeSantis, also focused on limiting damages and altering comparative fault rules.
Common Threads in Tort Reform Legislation
Several states—including Georgia, Texas, and South Carolina—are advancing tort reform legislation tailored to the concerns of local businesses, insurers, and medical providers. While the details vary, these efforts share a common goal: reducing perceived legal overreach and limiting liability exposure. Key themes include:
- Modifications to liability rules: All three states have proposed or enacted changes that limit joint-and-several liability or raise the bar for establishing fault—particularly in cases involving multiple defendants or third-party criminal acts.
- Procedural reforms: From restricting the admissibility of evidence in Texas to redefining foreseeability in Georgia negligent security cases, these bills make it harder for plaintiffs to prevail using broad or tangential arguments.
- Targeted cost controls: Georgia has introduced limits on the recovery of attorneys’ fees. While South Carolina and Texas have not explicitly capped legal fees, all three show interest in curbing excessive litigation costs.
These measures are often justified with promises to lower insurance premiums and eliminate frivolous lawsuits. But the evidence is mixed. A Congressional Budget Office report found that while damage caps reduce insurers’ losses, the impact on premiums was far less certain.
In fact, in no state have insurance premiums gone down.
A Coordinated Strategy, Not a Coincidence
What is clear is the strategy behind this wave of legislation. Model bills are being replicated across state lines—often with help from industry players. Enlyte, which lobbied in Georgia, contributed to model legislation based on Florida’s reforms that ultimately shaped SB 68. It’s the same playbook: limit exposure, reduce payouts, and reshape the courtroom in favor of deep-pocketed defendants.
The Role of Lobbying and Advocacy Groups
The spread of tort reform isn’t organic. It’s the product of a well-funded, coordinated strategy led by industry-backed lobbying groups. Organizations like the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) draft model bills and guide state-level campaigns to reshape civil justice systems.
In Georgia, political action committees aligned with Governor Kemp ran ad campaigns touting promised benefits like lower premiums and economic growth. But behind the curtain, it’s insurance and business interests calling the shots.
We’ve seen similar efforts in Texas and South Carolina. As I outlined in a recent article, insurers often frame themselves as champions of fairness and affordability—while shaping laws that protect their margins at the expense of patients and providers.
What This Means for Providers and Plaintiffs
Tort reform isn’t just about legal mechanics—it directly affects care delivery, patient recovery, and financial sustainability. Caps on damages and stricter liability standards limit compensation for plaintiffs and threaten the solvency of healthcare providers—especially those serving underinsured populations.
For example, Georgia’s SB 68 includes provisions that could reduce reimbursements for lien-based care, discouraging providers from treating personal injury patients altogether.
These changes have real consequences:
- Reduced access to care: Liability caps and procedural barriers disincentivize providers from accepting complex or high-risk cases.
- Diminished legal representation: Lower damage ceilings make it harder for attorneys to take on cases, especially for vulnerable plaintiffs.
- Erosion of provider privacy: So-called transparency measures may force disclosure of sensitive financial and clinical information—deterring provider participation in care models that support underserved populations.
Navigating the Post-Reform Landscape
As tort reform laws take hold in Georgia, Texas, and South Carolina, their effects are no longer hypothetical. The rules have changed—and stakeholders must respond accordingly.
For healthcare providers, this means reevaluating billing practices and exploring partnerships with compliant, third-party revenue cycle management providers, like Gain.
For attorneys and advocates, it means educating the public and working toward recalibration—policies that preserve justice while supporting real-world operations.
Final Word: Stay Alert, Stay Involved
This isn’t just a legal shift—it’s a structural one. Tort reform may be sold as a cost-saver, but it carries lasting consequences for patients, providers, and the balance of power in the courtroom.
The recent defeat of Texas SB 30 was a win—but a narrow one. Georgia’s package passed by just one vote. In both states, we’ve seen how overwhelmingly right the “little guy” has to be just to avoid being steamrolled.
Now is the time for informed engagement. Policymakers, providers, and everyday people—anyone who might one day be a patient or a plaintiff—must stay vigilant, ask tough questions, and push for legislation that serves not just corporate interests, but justice itself.