Breaking Down the New Rules: How Georgia's Tort Reform Will Impact Healthcare Litigation

Georgia's landmark tort reform legislation is reshaping the state's healthcare litigation landscape, and this episode dives deep into the changes that every healthcare organization needs to understand. Join us as we recap legal expert Michelle Madison's webinar where she broke down the complex reforms into digestible insights that reveal how these changes will impact everything from jury awards to insurance premiums.

The conversation explores how the new law tackles inflated damage calculations by requiring courts to consider actual paid medical expenses rather than billed charges. Jason and Aaron unpack Michelle's masterful explanation of how "anchoring" practices, where attorneys suggest astronomical damage amounts early in trials, are now prohibited, preventing juries from being psychologically influenced by unreasonable figures.

Perhaps most significant for healthcare organizations is the reform allowing motions to dismiss before expensive discovery begins. As Michelle explains, this change alone could dramatically reduce defense costs by eliminating unnecessary litigation expenses for cases without merit. 

While the full impact of these reforms won't be immediate, Michelle projects a three-to-five-year horizon before organizations see meaningful reductions in insurance premiums. For healthcare leaders navigating legal risks, this episode provides crucial context for understanding how Georgia's approach might become a model for other states facing similar challenges with outsized jury awards and rising insurance costs.

Watch the Michelle Madison Webinar in full on our YouTube Channel.

Curious about how data can strengthen your managed care strategies and support alternative payment models? Register for our upcoming September 30th webinar, "Decision Support Through Data Analytics," where experts Mike Scribner and Janey Marsen will demonstrate how to translate data into actionable insights for your organization.

Visit our website
Like us on Facebook
Tweet @ us on Twitter
Follow on Linkedin
Send an email contact@shpllc.com

Production © Strategic Healthcare Partners, LLC.
All rights reserved.

Chapters

• 1:03 Introduction to Georgia's Tort Reform
• 4:51 Understanding Economic vs Non-Economic Damages
• 9:49 Anchoring and Jury Award Limitations
• 13:28 Bifurcated Trials Explained
• 18:19 Attorney Fees and Double Recovery
• 21:44 Voluntary Dismissal Changes
• 24:24 Motion to Dismiss Before Discovery
• 28:33 Litigation Financing Regulations
• 31:58 Timeline for Insurance Premium Impacts
• 36:34 Upcoming Webinar and Episode Closing

Transcript

Jason: 0:32

Hey there folks, Welcome back to the podcast. I'm here with Jason Crosby. Jason, it is so great to see you, Aaron.

Aaron: 0:38

good to catch up again. I'm excited about today's recap.

Jason: 0:41

Yeah, so about a week or so ago we had a wonderful webinar with Michelle Madison and we covered Now I know our audience is kind of all over the world, so this is going to be a little hyper-specific to Georgia, but I would argue this is going to probably play out in a lot of other states. So, for those who don't know, georgia had some major legislation changing the way that lawsuits work, aka tort reform, and Michelle did a great job breaking down how this is going to matter for those in Georgia. So even though if you don't live here in the great state of Georgia, I think you'll find some value in this because you're going to start seeing other states. I think mimic what Georgia did.

Aaron: 1:32

Yeah, you know, just to reiterate, she did such a great Georgia did. Yeah, you know, just to reiterate, she did such a great, I just think a master's level class just on tort reform 101, right, she did 50 minutes just jam packed of Michelle talking about what some components are, but also the key changes. And to your point, aaron, you know all over the world she's with you know, shout out to her firm, bradley, a rant, bolton Cummings, one of the largest in the world. So most people can really benefit from listening to her webinar.

Jason: 2:03

Yeah, no doubt Michelle did an excellent job breaking it down To your point. I would actually say it's JD level. I learned so much beyond master's level. She crammed so much into this one hour. It was great. So, folks, before we get started breaking this down, I want to just point out don't, don't skip this one. We have it up on our website, shplccom slash webinars. You can watch the whole thing. And yes, I said watch. It's about an hour long. There are slides that go with it and, man, there's just so much crammed into it. You're going to get great value out of that one hour. So, jason, let's kind of jump right into it. So take it away.

Aaron: 2:47

Yeah, I'll tell you so, Michelle. Obviously, like we said, it's 50 minutes of Michelle talking, so she hops around, jumps on different topics that that we'll recap here. Obviously, as she starts out, georgia has become notorious for its outsized jury awards and in the past has also been number one in states to do business. Well, one has kind of captured the other and we're starting to see the impact to businesses wanting to actually come to Georgia and Michelle hits on that mainly obviously due to higher insurance premiums and just discouraging businesses overall.

Aaron: 3:23

So this year the governor and lieutenant governor both made it a priority to introduce new legislation that wasn't focused on imposing caps but rather root causes and in particular and we'll hear this from Michelle how damages are calculated, what's presented to juries. You know she covers anchoring motions to dismiss litigation, finance. The list goes on and on. So she covers so much that helps shed some light on those jury costs and insurance costs and the impacts it has on business recruitment. Not to mention she's a huge Georgia fan. There's a little dig she has during there that you'll catch from Michelle. She's a big Georgia fan, but let's play an excerpt from her right off the bat. She goes into how damages are determined and the difference between economic and non-economic damages.

Michele: 4:20

So we focused on things that really looked at how did we get to these numbers that were happening in the jury verdicts? And so they focused on the damages side. There's two different types of damages. There's the economic damages, which is all right. I've been injured and I have medical expenses. I had to go to rehab, I have therapy. I've lost my wages, lost my income, I couldn't work during that time period.

Michele: 4:46

Those are direct expenses that I'm incurring or through losses that may have resulted from an injury. So let's say I'm in a car accident and someone side swipes me and I get injured and I have to go to the hospital. So I've automatically got medical expenses there, I've got expenses for all my providers, I have to replace my car and I couldn't work for six weeks. So those are all direct economic damages that I sustained as a result of someone else's negligence in side swiping the car. Non-economic damages are things like physical and emotional pain, discomfort, anxiety, distress, so the types of things that you feel like they're more intangible but they're taking away from someone's enjoyment of life or companionship with others, and so those are more non-economic and it's harder to put a dollar amount on a non-economic damage. So economic damages I can say, hey, I get paid a thousand bucks a week and I couldn't work for six weeks. Here are my damages on that. Or the car repair costs two hundred thousand or two thousand dollars, and so here are the damages on that. Those are easier to quantify. Non-economic damages have not been easy.

Michele: 5:54

So one of the areas that we focused on were these economic damages. So if I go to the doctor and it costs $150,000 for my surgery and the hospital visit and my rehab and getting home and having home therapy, those are healthcare expenses that I've incurred, right, well, historically, there were times when a plaintiff's attorney would take the bills and instead of saying, well, the insurance company paid $150,000 for the surgery and the rehab and the home health, they would say, well, the hospital billed $275,000 for the surgery and they billed, you know, $100,000 for the rehab and the home health. Nurse was $50,000. And we all know, as people on this call who work in healthcare, health nurse was $50,000. And we all know, as people on this call who work in healthcare, what we bill and what our charges are are not what we bring home.

Michele: 6:45

So we weren't paid $100,000 for home health or $50,000 for home health and $100,000 for therapy we were paid probably $20,000, maybe $15,000. So the government said let's really look at what your actual medical damages are. Let's look at those real medical expenses of what was actually paid. And we'll talk more in a few minutes about litigation that gets financed by other people through the lien business. But the government and the courts will now say, all right, show me your invoices, let's see what was actually paid to the provider, not what was charged. And if for some reason something wasn't paid, so like if I go to a prospective payment system hospital and the charges are under a DRG method, they're going to estimate what the insurance company would have paid for that service.

Jason: 7:29

Oh man, I could just keep listening to that. I might go back and watch the recording. Yeah, and I was their life.

Aaron: 7:39

Well, even though we think, okay, we know what these terms mean, she just does an excellent job of reminding us how courts now can consider actual paid medical expenses versus just billed charges. I thought that was just such an enlightening point in healthcare, where you used to bill charges, right? Well, she highlights that in this reference there.

Jason: 7:59

Well, so I'm going to put on my municipal hat here for a second. The same sort of thing happens with cities, right, you have these attorneys who come in and they just see a big pile of cash, and this is obviously happening in healthcare too. So I like the idea of this, preventing attorneys from doing the anchoring where you know they come in and they're like this is $50 million worth of damages here without it really being substantiated. So I think this is a great change, for those who are now facing down a jury with the idea of 50 million in their mind can't do that anymore at least in our state.

Aaron: 8:39

That's right. That's right and very well explained by Michelle. And when I found she did a nice pivot, again helping us define what these things actually mean. Right, we hear these terms. Well, what do they actually mean and how are they impacted by the legislation? This next point she hit on non-economic damages in anchoring Basically to your point Erin the pain and suffering, the loss of enjoyment, which she again referenced Georgia football's national championship. Good job, michelle. But she did a good job of defining okay, guys, this is what anchoring is and how it's impacted. Let's, let's take a listen.

Michele: 9:18

One of the focuses of this tort reform law is to prevent that from happening, to prevent the attorney from saying in the beginning of the trial you know, my client did X, y, z, monday through Sunday and they love this and they love that and showing pictures of all their family and everything that they did, and then saying'll never be able to do that again and you can never pay them enough to be able to do it. $300 million won't make them. Well, you can't do that anymore. Because now you've got to wait until after the close of evidence to be able to rationally relate your request for what you think the damages are to something that is reasonable, related to the actual economic and non-economic damages that would have been sustained by this individual. And if you say something in opening that runs afoul of it not being rationally related, you could get in trouble with the courts. But let's say that you have real numbers. Let's say that you can say I know my client has $300,000 in medical expenses and we know that they had to go through six weeks of being off work and we know their damages are this much. That's a rationally related number. But you can't change that number when you get to closing and say well, they had so many hundred thousand dollars in actual damages that they actually took out of pocket or had a loss of wages. Now that's worth 50 million dollars in closing arguments. You can't do that either. So it's called anchoring, and anchoring is where the plaintiff's attorney anchors the jury's mind on a number that is not reasonable nor rationally related to the actual damages that were sustained by that individual.

Michele: 10:50

We had a case gosh, it was probably six months ago, seven months ago in Southeast Georgia, so it was before this law went into effect and the plaintiff's attorney's opening statement was this is a $37 million case.

Michele: 11:07

And I will tell you that, for whatever reason, there were lots of people in the courtroom that day and I don't know if it was because the press was following the case or why, but it hit social media so quickly that I was getting text messages like every 10 minutes from different physicians saying how can you have a $37 million? And it was just what the plaintiff's attorney said in their opening statement. At the end of the day, they never proved $37 million in damages, so they could not do that today with this new law. The new law is to say you have to provide evidence of the damages sustained. And if you're going to throw out a number to encapsulate those non-economic damages that we can't show an invoice for, it has to be rationally related to the actual damages that are being sustained by the individual to the actual damages that are being sustained by the individual.

Aaron: 12:02

So, as you heard there, Erin, she did a good job again of saying, okay, let's separate the non-economic from the economic and define what these things are. So another good job Michelle did there.

Jason: 12:07

Yeah no, that's again. I think this is really great reform. Again from a business standpoint, certainly from a healthcare standpoint, this is going to position organizations in a better place when it does come to a legitimate lawsuit.

Aaron: 12:27

Yeah, yeah, very good, yeah, yeah. And then she again pivoted to another topic which I was not at all familiar with and, quite honestly, not sure I'm not saying that correct bifurcated trials, and she just did a great job of reminding us what that is and how that impacts us Right? So basically, the phased approach to trials and trial strategy overall. Let's, let's, take a listen to this. It's about a two minute clip here.

Michele: 12:57

And so the first phase is just to decide is there any fault here? Right Is did anybody do anything wrong or negligent that someone should pay. Not talking about money we're not talking about what happened from a non-economic perspective, just talking about negligence. And then if the answer is yes, someone was negligent, then you go into a second part. Now the part that's a little weird about this is you have the same judge and jury, so they're going to have some information, but the jury instruction should focus the jury that now you're only deciding on damages based upon the evidence that's submitted related to damages, not large numbers that are thrown out for anchoring. And then let's say the jury says, yes, the hospital's negligent and yes, we're going to give damages. And let's say that they give damages of $3 million.

Michele: 13:43

There is a potential for a third phase in this bifurcated trial where the plaintiff could come back and say all right, somebody should have settled with me three years ago, I shouldn't have had to bring this trial. And so I want my attorney's fees. I want the litigation cost because the hospital was wrong in keeping this trial going. So now I'm going to ask for punitive damages or attorney's fees related to this trial. That normally goes before the judge, not necessarily a jury. Attorney's fees have to be determined if they're reasonable, so that usually goes before the judge. But that's the third phase. It doesn't sound like it's all that different when you say oh well, you still have to try the negligence, you have to try the damages. But the jury instructions of what they're deciding in two different trials and changing the determination of what they're going to look at should impact the damage side. Plus that in combination with they can't anchor anymore.

Aaron: 14:37

So we heard there again just the trial strategy, as she put it, aaron, versus hearing to your point. You started this off by how you would hear the emotional damage, part of damages. Well, now that's sort of segmented to where you're hearing it in phases right.

Jason: 14:56

To borrow a phrase, just the facts, ma'am, I do. I think this is fair, right. The facts, ma'am, I, I do. I think this is fair, right, I. I have been injured in an accident before and it ended up going to court, was settled out of court ultimately. But having having been there, I've also served as a juror in in a court battle, and having this bifurcation for these sort of things I think is fair, because if we're looking at it from a non-emotional, these are the facts and just the facts. That's actually how you determine fairness.

Jason: 15:32

I know someone who has gone through pain and suffering. Again, I was in a car accident. I had to sue someone. I don't recommend it. It wasn't fun.

Jason: 15:41

But going through that process and what would have been actually fair would have been this sort of approach.

Jason: 15:47

We see this all the time in like a murder trial, where there's a jury that stood up to determine somebody is guilty of murder, but then the sentencing phase is handled by a different jury, and they do that not in all states and some states, so it's not a totally foreign concept, but I think it is an entirely new concept, as I can find, for damage awarding in these kind of civil litigation. So I think this is a great change and time will bear it out as to how effective this is, but I think we're going to reach more fair settlements, not these huge giant awards that as to how effective this is, but I think we're going to reach more fair settlements, not these huge giant awards that okay, yeah, you have a mother or a person who's crying and it tugs on the heartstrings of the jury and so they are. Oh, they deserve $25 million or whatever. Hopefully, those sort of awards. It's still fair for the victims of um, you know, whatever happened here, but it's not punishing necessarily to to those that are at fault.

Aaron: 16:50

So, you know, I I think this is going to bring some fairness to the process yeah, yeah, I agree, it kind of takes that human emotion and compartmentalizes it during the process. And uh, yeah, to your point. I found it interesting she mentioned it's actually the same judge and jury, but they break it down to allow that fairness to take place. So interesting, yeah, separating it.

Jason: 17:12

Yeah, and I want to be clear about that. And in Georgia this bifurcation is the process is separated, but it's still the same people involved, so you don't have to reeduceducate, unlike some of the criminals. Bifurcation where there is a separate jury that stood up. In this case it's all the same.

Aaron: 17:29

Interesting approach, yeah. So she continued down the path of something that's important for everybody here to hear about health care costs, the impact of cost from tort reform and she pivoted over to attorney fees. So let's take a listen here about another two-minute clip from Michelle.

Michele: 17:48

On the attorney's fees. This is going to eliminate being able to capture attorney's fees twice. So you know, you see the billboards and you see the buses and you live down in near the Chatham area, if you get off on 516 and go south, there's like 27 billboards that have plaintiff's attorneys on them. So as you look at that, a lot of times those attorneys have contracts that say we'll take 40, you don't pay unless we recover for you, and we'll take 40% or 30%, but 40% of your settlement proceeds. So if we don't win you don't pay, but if we win then you pay.

Michele: 18:28

And so the court is trying to close the loophole where let's say I've got a case and I'm a plaintiff's attorney and I'm going to get 40% of whatever comes out right. So I try the case and we win, and we win big. So let's say we win $10 million, so I'm going to get 40% of $10 million but me attorney's fees because they were litigious in not cooperating. So now they go back and say, hey, my attorney's fees should be paid. So now they're getting their 40 percent plus fees. So that's out the door. Now you're going to get paid once, not twice, if you're a plaintiff's attorney, and and it's going to require for it to be a reasonable fee. If you have a contingent fee agreement, it's not supposed to be admissible as showing that yes, that's a reasonable amount. They're actually going to look at how many hours did you spend, what was your hourly rate, what were your expenses on the trial, and really try to determine what is a reasonable amount for attorneys to get paid.

Aaron: 19:46

So, erin, to one of your previous points. You know, michelle just recapped how attorney's fees are now limited to a single reasonable payment and trying to close loopholes that allowed for that. As she called it, double recovery. Right, you get paid x because your client was paid x, but then you're going to go seek additional fees. Well, let's close those loopholes there, and that was a good job recapping that by michelle yeah, you know.

Jason: 20:13

It kind of reminds me of a of a joke. Uh, a 45 year old attorney dies and goes to heaven and he's standing there at the gates and he tells saint peter, I was only 45 years old. Why, why am I here? And saint peter, he looks at his, his book of life and he goes well, according to your billing sheets, you're 97 well done so hopefully this this will curb some of that sort of behavior.

Aaron: 20:46

Well, you know she hit on that being such a big impact to overall costs in and of itself, so closing loophole always important. Then we sort of pivoted right after that to, as she termed it, voluntary dismissal and again another piece that she emphasizes having a huge impact on overall defense costs. Let's take a listen here.

Michele: 21:12

So it used to be that when you had a lawsuit and you had to answer the lawsuit, you would answer the lawsuit and you would go to you're the defense, you're answering the lawsuit. You prepare for a lawsuit and sometimes it takes years. So that case down in Southwest Georgia was on for what? Seven or 10 years, with some crazy amount of time where that case would kept going. And some of these cases do take that long.

Michele: 21:39

And so you've answered the lawsuit, you've gone through all this discovery, you've done all these depositions. You get to the actual trial, you've picked a jury and then the plaintiff says you know, I'm not sure I really like that jury, and they do a voluntary dismissal at trial and now they can come back and refile. And so the court said this is too much, this is creating too much cost in the litigation system. So if you're going to do a voluntary dismissal of your case, you have to do it within 60 days after receipt of the answer. So if I'm a hospital and I get sued, I have to answer that lawsuit in 30 days, right? So the plaintiff's attorney would need to decide in those next 60 days. Do they think they really have a good case and are they going to proceed with it or are they going to do a voluntary dismissal and try to rework their case? So this is important from a cost-saving perspective in the litigation system. So voluntary dismissals can either be 60 days after the answer now or by mutual agreement of both parties.

Aaron: 22:42

So, Erin, we heard Michelle there mention how this voluntary dismissal, the streamlining of it, helps avoid plaintiffs dismissing a case just to refile it for a whole new jury or more favorable jurisdiction after defense costs has already been incurred. So another emphasis in the reform legislation to help reduce costs. I think another pivotal point Michelle brought up there. Yeah.

Jason: 23:09

Yeah, it almost leans on the concept of double jeopardy, and I'm not talking the TV show. It does stop some of the court shopping that's gone on or even jury shopping that has happened. I haven't experienced it myself, but I've heard stories. So again, I think this is reasonable reform.

Aaron: 23:33

So now the next point. Right after this, she termed it the big one. According to Michelle, this obviously was something. When she says that and she's 30 minutes in, it catches your attention right, but this is regarding a motion to dismiss. Let's listen to Michelle here.

Michele: 23:52

This is the biggie. So the motion to dismiss. So, right now, if I'm the hospital and I get sued in my example right, and I have to answer within 30 days, if I think this case has no merit and there is no reason for this case to be brought, I want to file a motion to dismiss. Well, in order to file a motion to dismiss, legally, I'm supposed to file that with my answer, like it needs to be filed, with the answer. If I supposed to file that with my answer, like it needs to be filed, with the answer, if I don't file it with the answer, my motion to dismiss is likely gone right. Well, the problem is is that by the time I file my answer and I have to do my motion to dismiss, at that time I've got to do discovery, and so, while the motion to dismiss might be pending, there's a whole bunch of discovery going on, there's depositions being taken, there's documents I'm having to produce, lots of litigation expenses ongoing, and yet I might get my motion to dismiss and none of that would have been necessary and all of this cost that I've incurred would have been for nothing. And so they've changed it now where, instead of filing an answer with my motion to dismiss. I can now just file my motion to dismiss and say look, court, I don't think that this case has merit and I think you should just dismiss it. And so the court has to listen. Look at the motion to dismiss. Everything gets stayed in the meantime. So no depositions, no discovery, no interrogatories, no production of documents. I'm not spending money to defend myself because I don't think it's a real lawsuit that should go to court.

Michele: 25:19

And so then, once the judge says we agree, there's no merit behind the case, we're going to dismiss it. I'm done Now if the court disagrees and says you know, there's an issue of fact of whether or not your nurse should have been the one counting the sponges, so we're going to let it go through. Fifteen days after the judge makes that order, I then have to file my answer denying liability. Right, so the other time that. So the discovery has stayed as long as the motion to dismiss is ongoing. The court is supposed to rule a motion to dismiss within 90 days. But if they don't, then the plaintiff's attorney can petition for the court, filing a motion asking them to go ahead and either rule on the motion or allow discovery to commence. So discovery stops until the judge actually says all right, I'm ruling on the motion to dismiss and now you have to answer. Or discovery could commence if the other court, if the other party asked for it to, after the 90 days following the briefing of the motions.

Aaron: 26:19

So, erin, not to get lost in these weeds, because I would get very lost trying to talk to this, but Michelle's recapping of voluntary dismissals and the time frame of how they must occur within 60 days of a defendant's answer, to help streamline litigation, reduce cost, etc.

Jason: 26:37

Just another point I wasn't aware of to help emphasize lowering costs, yeah, yeah, well, and I think too that the motions to dismiss before discovery is huge, because discovery can be a huge cost of any lawsuit, you know, and it can, it's the most time. It's the thing that delays most trials happening is discovery. And yeah, no, I think the ability to file a motion to dismiss even before discovery has happened is like she said. It's one of the biggest pieces here and you can prove it doesn't have merit before you go through all your pain and suffering as a defendant in a lawsuit and you can get the case to go away. That's big. So, again, time will bear out how this helps, but I think it's going to help far more than it hurts.

Aaron: 27:29

Well, just the rework, the cost. I mean we've talked about lean and streamline and before right. Well, good Lord, this seems like right up the alley of reducing rework by folks and obviously their cost. But good recap there Consumer Protection Act, this along the lines of litigation financing, which was another interesting point I got to say I wasn't familiar with once you dove into the weeds there. Let's take a listen.

Michele: 28:02

The government was very concerned and when I say the government, the state was very concerned that there were third parties out there that were looking for plaintiffs to then fund their lawsuits and then take a percentage of the settlement amount or the jury verdict amount so that it's like a profitable business. Right, I'm going to like a bank, I'm going to loan you money and then, when the settlement comes through, I'm going to get a percentage of whatever your settlement is and I could possibly make more money than what I loaned you in June. And the government was concerned that one of the reasons that Georgia was having such increases in litigation and so many cases being brought to the court system was because people were literally funding it, and because they were funding it, they were pushing it to get all the way to the courts so they could get their best jury verdict. They could possibly get that ties up a lot of money, a lot of court system time and a lot of processes and funds for both parties on both sides. But if I'm a plaintiff and someone's funding it for me, I don't have anything to lose.

Michele: 29:04

So the governments also did some reviews and they believe that a lot of the entities that were being funded to then fund litigation were being funded by foreign governments, and so they passed this law that when you have litigation financing, these individual companies or entities must now register to do business in the state of Georgia. So before they just came in, they would go to wherever they went to find plaintiffs, they would give them funding for their lawsuit and take a percentage of whatever was recovered once the jury gave their verdict or if there was a big settlement or whatever it was.

Aaron: 29:40

So, erin, you know she recapped their litigation financing changes that actually kick in on 1-1-26. And what I found interesting, what I wasn't aware of, she referenced how companies now must register in Georgia because previously many were foreign owned.

Jason: 29:57

I thought what an interesting point yeah, that was news to me. That was fascinating.

Aaron: 30:03

Yeah, and trying to restrict them from taking more than an equal share of settlements and to influence case decisions. And also Michelle, for those that want to go see it she listed it out in her webinar had a top 10 list of things that a financier cannot do now, so to me that was a top three sort of moment that I wasn't even aware of.

Jason: 30:30

Yeah yeah, no doubt this will again lots of positive change. Uh, in this tort reform, yeah, it wasn't perfect, don't don't get me wrong. There are things that I wanted to see in this tort reform that we didn't get, but this is a good one. A good one because I didn't even know this was a problem.

Aaron: 30:46

I didn't even know it was a problem it kind of is obviously a problem, it's, it's, I didn't even worry. You can almost outsource that litigation financing to someone kind of like we do with billing collection companies, nonetheless to a foreign owned government entity Like wow, hello, hello, anyways, anyways, and to our lasting point, while you and I can talk about the legal cost impact and respective timelines from this legislation, michelle, as usual, does a much better job than you and I could do, so let's let Michelle wrap this up.

Michele: 31:20

Yeah, I actually think that it's going to take a little time, right, Because there are lots of. It's going to take a while for these cases to move through the courts and we'll see whether or not the bifurcated trial cuts down on the amount of the damages that are actually being awarded and we get more reasonable. I think it's between a three to a five year horizon before the savings can actually be evaluated so that you could have knowledge of what the cost savings will be. I think the fact that you can file a motion to dismiss now without going through all that discovery, that should start impacting insurance premiums faster, because the cost for litigation should be less for the defendants. So when we go to renew insurance next year, I don't think we're going to see the insurance premiums go down.

Michele: 32:10

My hope would be that they won't go up as much as they have been historically, and then the next year I'd like to see it stay the same and start to then start ratcheting down, because the legal cost on these trial strategies should be less. Now we should not be having double attorney's fees paid out. We should not be incurring discovery. If we have a motion to dismiss on, frivolous litigation is there, we should not see as much frivolous litigation if it's being funded by third parties that now have to register with the state as a business and if they're responsible for frivolous litigation, they're not going to fund or hopefully they won't fund frivolous litigation. So I think it's a three to five year horizon. I have not asked the insurance companies yet to see where we are, Cause I think everybody's got you know their premiums roll at different times. But this isn't a oh 2026, everything's going to be stable in Georgia. We're talking 2032. We're still looking at okay, have the costs come down and what's the jury verdict looking at now?

Aaron: 33:09

So, Erin, again, Michelle did a great job of just emphasizing and recapping the chef's kiss.

Jason: 33:16

Yes, chef's kiss.

Aaron: 33:18

Just the cost impact the streamlining of all these bits and pieces of this legislation will have.

Jason: 33:26

Yeah, well and honestly, we are excited about this, but it's one of those things it's going to take a little bit of time to trickle through before we see the full impact of this. Uh, what did she say? Three to five years, really, before we have any true insight? Uh, so I do not expect Georgia to start tinkering with this anytime soon, unless there's some kind of glaring issue that arises. I think they're going to let this simmer and stew for the next three to five years before they make any substantive changes to this reform. So, going forward, I think all the other states, particularly those that are really struggling with these high awards, they're going to be looking to Georgia to see how it plays out here. So stay tuned.

Jason: 34:12

It's not going to come to you next year. It'll probably come to you in a couple of years, that's true, and we'll have Michelle back on for that no doubt, and it's important to note. I think too, this only applies to state awards in the state courts. If there is any sort of federal lawsuit or something like that, the federal rules still apply. I don't see those changing anytime soon. Good point.

Aaron: 34:36

Good point. So about a week or two after this episode launches our next event, I really want to highlight it. It's a webinar on September 30th, a live webinar titled Decision Support Through Data Analytics, which Aaron is a proud data geek member of that squad, yeah.

Jason: 34:57

I am Data data data.

Aaron: 34:59

Data data. But this is a repeat live presentation, actually, that Mike Scribner and Janey Marsan did just this August in Atlanta for the Georgia ASC Association, where they'll take the data but put a lot of narrative and story behind it. Right, like you can do anything with a data book what do you do with it, how do you use it. So they'll highlight how to strengthen your managed care strategies, what to pull from your system, support your APMs all that good stuff. So take a listen, or actually take a take a seat, because they're going to have some good slides to go over and then you and I my friend get to dive into it. On the recap after the webinar that's right.

Jason: 35:42

So on our website, shplc. com slash webinars, there will be a link there where you can register for the free webinar so you can watch it live. And of course, if you can't make it at that time, no sweat, we will have a recording posted within a couple of days of the webinar going up. And certainly, if you don't want to go to our website, you can contact us on our social media channels. We will have links there.

Aaron: 36:07

Well, another great recap, aaron, you and I will be back on in a couple of weeks or a few weeks here, but until then, hope everybody has a great September and a great rest of your week.

Jason: 36:21

And that's it for this episode of Beyond the Stethoscope Vital Conversations with SHP. I'm Aaron Henry.

Aaron: 36:27

I'm Jason Crosby, still talking to the mic as if it was my full-time job.

Jason: 36:32

This podcast is a production of Strategic Healthcare Partners, where healthcare meets data and still somehow ends up in a podcast. Our executive producers are Mike.

Aaron: 36:40

Skrimner and John Crew, who keep this train on the tracks even when Aaron and I try to derail it.

Jason: 36:46

We're doing our best. Speaking of doing our best, our editor, Naila Weave, deserves an award for turning our verbal chaos into something somewhat coherent Kudos for sure, let's also give a shout out to our social media channel by Jeremy Miller at Boost by Design.

Aaron: 37:01

So if you liked it, give him some applause, if not, let's blame Aaron.

Jason: 37:06

It wouldn't be the first time Our transcription is by a robot, but it's been lightly massaged into readable English by your two hosts, both of whom are supposedly human.

Aaron: 37:17

Debatable and if you really like the transcription, dig through our podcast archive or check out our services at shplccom slash podcast. Go ahead, click around, have some fun while you're at it.

Jason: 37:27

We'll wait for you and also come find us on social media. We're on Facebook and LinkedIn. You can send us a question, leave a comment, troll us a little bit or, more importantly, tell Jason that his dad jokes need some work. That one stings a little bit.

Aaron: 37:43

Thanks for hanging with us everybody. We'll be back soon in your feeds.

Jason: 37:47

Assuming no one pulls the plug or trips over, for that matter. But until then, stay curious, stay healthy and keep asking the vital questions, Maybe stay hydrated.

Aaron: 37:58

Just a thought. Bye y'all.

Nyla: 38:04

Hey, this is Nyla, the podcast editor of this show. So the other day I was on a Zoom call with Jason and Aaron and Jeremy, who does the SEO and social media for this show, and on this Zoom call I told them this joke and nobody laughed, and so I guess I'm just not even remotely funny. Hmm.