Provides for fair and reasonable charges for certain medical and health care services in civil actions.
Summary
H5912 adds a new evidence rule to Rhode Island law governing civil cases involving personal injury, wrongful death, and related claims, including medical, dental, and professional malpractice. In those cases, the bill states that the "fair and reasonable charge" for medical, hospital, therapeutic, and other health care services is the amount billed by the licensed provider, rather than a lower amount that may have been accepted from an insurer or public program as payment in full.
The bill also makes clear that evidence of what was actually paid by health insurers, accident or disability insurers, state or federal health programs, medical payments coverage, personal injury protection coverage, or workers' compensation benefits would be inadmissible to prove the reasonable value of the services. The act would take effect immediately upon passage and would apply in courts, agencies, arbitration forums, and other tribunals handling these types of claims.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend Rhode Island’s evidence law in Chapter 9-19 by creating a specific rule for proving medical damages in civil injury and wrongful death actions. It would likely affect how plaintiffs, defendants, insurers, and expert witnesses present and challenge medical expense evidence, and could increase recoverable medical damages by tying admissible proof to billed charges rather than negotiated or discounted payments.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote, so there is no documented debate or formal sentiment in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s structure and caption, it appears to be a plaintiff-favorable tort and damages measure intended to support recovery of full billed medical charges in civil litigation.
Contention
The central point of contention is likely the valuation of medical expenses in litigation: supporters would favor using billed charges as the measure of reasonable value, while opponents such as insurers, defense attorneys, and potentially self-insured entities may object that negotiated or paid amounts better reflect actual market value. The bill also excludes evidence of collateral payment sources, which could be controversial because it limits defendants’ ability to argue for lower damages based on insurance discounts or public-program reimbursements.