SB 30 revises Texas law governing the recovery and proof of health care-related damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases. The bill adds detailed definitions for terms such as health care expenses, providers, third-party payors, and letters of protection, and it creates new evidentiary rules for proving the reasonable value of medical services, supplies, and devices. In cases where a third-party payor covered the treatment, recoverable evidence is generally limited to the amount actually paid plus any patient cost-sharing amounts. If that rule does not apply, the bill allows several categories of evidence, including amounts paid by non-third-party payors, Medicare allowable amounts, workers’ compensation fee guidelines, certain contracted rates, provider collected amounts, and billed charges.
The bill also imposes new disclosure requirements in cases seeking health care expenses. Claimants must disclose letters of protection, any refund or rebate agreements, the identity of treating providers, and referral information when a provider was referred by the claimant’s attorney and the provider’s records or testimony will be used at trial. Providers, upon request, must disclose certain anonymized attorney referral and payment information and other financial relationship details. The bill further makes specified medical records, letters of protection, attorney-referral information, and workers’ compensation treatment guidelines admissible if offered, while leaving other evidentiary matters to the Texas Rules of Evidence.
SB 30 changes the Civil Practice and Remedies Code and applies to new cases filed on or after the effective date, as well as some pending cases if trial or retrial begins on or after January 1, 2026. It is therefore both a substantive and procedural reform affecting how damages are calculated and what evidence may be introduced in personal injury and wrongful death litigation. The bill appears aimed at standardizing medical-damages proof and limiting inflated or disputed medical billing evidence in civil cases.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history suggests the bill was generally supported, but not without resistance. The Senate advanced the bill by a 20-11 vote, and several attempted amendments failed on largely party-line margins, indicating disagreement over the bill’s details. In the House, the bill moved forward with broad support on several procedural and amendment votes, though some votes were closer, suggesting active debate over the scope of the reforms.
The main points of contention appear to center on how much medical-billing evidence should be admissible, whether billed charges or paid amounts should control, and the bill’s treatment of letters of protection and attorney-provider referral relationships. Critics likely viewed the disclosure and admissibility provisions as burdensome or as targeting plaintiffs’ counsel and certain medical providers, while supporters likely saw them as necessary to improve transparency and curb inflated medical damages. The absence of committee transcript detail limits the ability to identify specific arguments, but the voting pattern indicates the bill was controversial in its particulars even as it advanced.
SB 30 amends Chapter 41 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code by creating new definitions and new rules for proving and disclosing health care expenses in personal injury and wrongful death actions. It narrows or structures the evidence that may be used to establish reasonable medical damages, especially where insurance or other third-party payors have already paid for treatment, and it adds mandatory disclosures and admissibility rules concerning letters of protection, referral relationships, and provider financial arrangements. The bill affects claimants, defendants, health care providers, attorneys, insurers, and courts handling civil damage claims.
The bill’s legislative history suggests generally favorable momentum, with repeated successful procedural votes and final advancement, but also meaningful opposition to some of its provisions. Senate votes show a clear majority in favor of moving the bill, while multiple amendments failed, indicating limited appetite for altering its core framework. House votes also show support for the bill’s progression, though some votes were closer, reflecting debate over the policy choices embedded in the measure.
The most notable disputes involve whether recoverable medical damages should be based on amounts actually paid versus billed charges, and how much access opposing parties should have to letters of protection and attorney-provider referral information. Opponents likely objected to the bill’s disclosure burdens and its potential to reduce recoverable damages in civil cases, while supporters likely argued that the bill improves transparency and prevents manipulation of medical bills in litigation. The failed amendments and close votes suggest the details of evidentiary limits and disclosure requirements were the primary points of contention.