Most people comment on legislation from the sidelines. I’ve been in the room.

In Georgia, I sat down with the Governor’s office. I briefed the Attorney General. I volunteered to work with state leaders to show that what we do—legal funding and lien servicing—doesn’t need to be feared, doesn’t need to be vilified, and absolutely doesn’t need to be shut down.

But eight weeks before Georgia introduced its sweeping tort reform package, the phone stopped ringing. And I knew how this would end.

It ended the way powerful interests wanted it to: fast, aggressive, and backed by insurance lobbyists who convinced lawmakers that capping damages and slashing reimbursements would lead to lower premiums and a more efficient legal system.

We now know the truth: they got everything they wanted—and they’re not willing to give anything back.

Georgia: A Case Study in What Not to Do

Georgia’s SB 68 and SB 69 were positioned as drivers of better outcomes—but early signs suggest otherwise:

• Provider participation is shrinking. Legal experts and plaintiffs’ attorneys report that SB 68’s revised rules on negligent security, evidence, and bifurcated trials could discourage providers from handling PI cases. 

• Medical reimbursements are tightening. SB 68 limits recoverable medical expenses to amounts actually paid—curbing older practices of charging full “chargemaster” or billed rates. 

• Insurance costs keep climbing. Georgia drivers paid an average of $2,815 in 2024, and rates are forecasted to climb another ~8% to $3,052 in 2025. Statewide auto-premium increases outpaced national trends, even amid tort reform rhetoric. 

As a result, patients and plaintiffs are seeing fewer provider options, more procedural hurdles, and diminished financial recovery.

The playbook emerges clearly: restrict system access, insulate insurers—then sell it as reform.

Texas, You Dodged a Bullet—For Now

Texas lawmakers nearly followed Georgia’s lead with SB 30. The bill didn’t pass—but don’t mistake that as a permanent outcome. It failed by a margin narrow enough to remind us that this isn’t over. Not in Texas. Not in Florida. Not anywhere.

We’ve seen this cycle before: a bill gets defeated, the lobbyists regroup, and a new version is introduced under a different name but with the same core agenda.

SB 30 included familiar tactics: heightened disclosure requirements, billing restrictions, and subtle language designed to paint lien-based care as something sinister—when in fact, it’s the lifeline keeping many patients afloat.

What I Saw Behind Closed Doors

The moment I knew SB 68 and SB 69 had real traction was when people who’d been calling me for months suddenly went silent.

I offered to open our books, walk lawmakers through our servicing model, and explain why independent third-party administration strengthens—not weakens—transparency and compliance. But in meeting after meeting, the response felt scripted: nod, listen, move on. The deal was already done.

That’s the problem. Reform being shaped by lobbyists, not legislators. By perception, not performance. And by the very interests that profit most from a system that delays care, obscures outcomes, and underpays those delivering it.

What Lawmakers Need to Hear

At Gain, we’ve built our model for this exact moment. Not just to survive in a post-reform era—but to lead through it.

• We don’t fund and forget—we service. Independently. Compliantly. At scale.
• We don’t take shortcuts—we build defensibility into every step of the revenue cycle.
• And we don’t just show up after the bills pass—we try to shape them before they’re written.

We’ve seen what happens when lawmakers legislate based on headlines rather than outcomes. They end up hurting the very people they claim to protect.

Final Word: Don’t Mistake Delay for Victory

SB 30 didn’t pass—but Georgia’s bills did. The insurance lobby isn’t going away. And states considering similar legislation should be asking better questions:

• Who benefits when providers walk away from PI care?
• Who wins when patients are stuck waiting months—or years—for treatment or reimbursement?
• And who’s really behind these bills?

Texas has another chance to get this right. But that means listening to people who’ve actually done the work—not just those trying to shut it down.

I’m not asking for special treatment. I’m asking for better thinking.

Don’t just pass what Georgia passed.

Don’t just say yes to the lobby with the loudest voice.

And don’t just call it reform—unless it actually reforms something for the better.