Provides for recoverable medical expenses. (1/1/26)
Summary
SB 231 revises Louisiana law governing the recovery of past medical expenses in civil actions. The bill changes how medical damages are calculated when a claimant’s treatment was paid by health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, workers’ compensation, or certain pre-negotiated provider agreements. In those situations, recovery is generally limited to the amount actually paid, plus any applicable cost-sharing amounts owed or paid by the claimant, rather than the higher amount originally billed by the provider.
The bill also creates special rules for jury trials and admissible evidence. In cases covered by the bill, juries are to be told the amount billed, but not whether insurance, Medicare, or another payer covered all or part of the expenses; evidence about actual payments is addressed by the court after the verdict. The bill further allows a claimant to receive 40% of the difference between the billed amount and the amount actually paid in certain insured or Medicare cases, as consideration for the cost of obtaining the benefit, unless the defendant proves that amount would be unreasonable. The measure excludes certain claims involving medical malpractice and benefits under automobile medical payments coverage, applies prospectively only, and takes effect January 1, 2026.
Impact
SB 231 amends R.S. 9:2800.27 and materially narrows recoverable past medical expenses in Louisiana tort litigation by tying damages more closely to amounts actually paid rather than amounts billed. It affects claimants, defendants, insurers, Medicare and Medicaid-related claims, workers’ compensation cases, and medical providers with negotiated rates or liens. It also changes trial procedure and evidence rules by limiting what juries may hear about collateral-source payments and by directing courts to handle payment evidence after a verdict in jury trials.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests the bill had meaningful but not unanimous support. It passed the Senate on final passage 27-8, the House on final passage 80-15, and the Senate concur vote 30-6, indicating broad legislative approval with a persistent minority of opposition. The lack of committee transcripts limits insight into detailed debate, but the strong final votes suggest the measure was generally viewed favorably by a majority of lawmakers.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s reduction of recoverable medical damages from billed amounts to paid amounts, which can lower tort awards and is often criticized by plaintiff-side advocates as limiting compensation. The 40% add-on for the difference between billed and paid amounts may also have been debated as a compromise, with questions about whether it fairly accounts for procurement costs or instead creates an arbitrary reduction. Another likely area of disagreement is the restriction on jury knowledge of insurance or other collateral payments, which can be seen either as preventing prejudice or as limiting transparency in damages determinations.