Over the course of this series, we have examined California’s SB 623 from many different perspectives.

We have explored how the legislation came to be.

We have discussed what changes.

We have considered how it may influence healthcare providers, attorneys, insurers, transportation companies, medical funding, and patient access to care.

We have also acknowledged that reasonable people can disagree about both the need for reform and the best way to accomplish it.

Now it is time to ask a different question:

What should healthcare providers do next?

Buckle up, as this article will be more extensive than the others, but also perhaps the most important, as it’s a call to action.

Get The Word Out to Peers and Organizations … and Demand Political Action

I do believe there are aspects of SB 623 that are valuable and may benefit society.

But I also believe there are provisions that need to be reconsidered so that the legitimate spirit and intent of the law can be preserved while unintended consequences are corrected.

Importantly, SB 623 itself contains severability language.

That means provisions can potentially be separated without necessarily causing the entire statutory structure to collapse.

That matters.

Because I am not suggesting that healthcare providers should seek to destroy everything SB 623 attempted to accomplish. SB 623, in one form or another, is here to stay.

Quite the opposite.

I believe there is a better strategy.

A narrower strategy.

A more politically realistic strategy.

And potentially a far less expensive strategy.

I call it a surgical strike.

In my opinion, there should be no “void and unenforceable” language that unnecessarily threatens otherwise legitimate medical obligations.

I believe FAIR Health or other medical-cost limitations should principally address the evidentiary presentation at trial rather than become a de facto limitation on legitimate medical billing throughout the entire life of a personal injury matter.

That still gives transportation companies and other defendants what they say they want:

Protection against medical specials being used to artificially magnify jury awards and create nuclear or thermonuclear verdicts.

I also believe the law should reconsider restrictions affecting medical financing and funding.

Medical funding serves a very real purpose. Patients do not always have health insurance. Even when they do, appropriate specialists may be unavailable in-network.

Some patients need significant care now, not two years from now after a case resolves. Funding companies help make that care possible.

If policymakers want to restrict what a jury hears concerning the cost of funded procedures, that can be addressed as an evidentiary issue. That is fundamentally different from limiting whether funding can exist or whether a funding company can profit for assuming risk.

Finally, I believe the declaration requirement concerning referral relationships should be shifted toward those who actually possess the relevant information, the law firms and attorneys making the referrals.

Yes, medical offices frequently know who sent the patient. Other times they do not. Or it may be missed. They also do not necessarily know who inside a law firm made the decision, what internal communications occurred, whether another referral source was involved, or what relationships existed before the patient arrived.

If transparency is the goal, I support transparency.

But place the burden upon the party best capable of accurately providing the information. Place it on the law firms.

The PPC PAC: Good Intentions, But Is It Fighting the Wrong Battle?

There is another important part of this story that healthcare providers need to understand.

The PPC PAC stepped forward to fight for independent physicians and providers.

Before I say anything critical, let me be crystal clear: I applaud them for doing so.

I have spoken directly with PAC leadership. I attended their August 10, 2026 Town Hall. I publicly stated during that Town Hall what I believe is obvious:

The people involved appear genuinely devoted to protecting independent medical practices.

They are passionate. They are investing time. They are donating money. They are trying to solve a very difficult problem.

Whatever disagreement I may have with their strategy, I do not question their motivation.

But good motivation does not automatically equal good analysis. And good intentions do not guarantee a winning strategy.

Reasonable minds can differ.

I recognize that. They may ultimately be right. I may ultimately be wrong.

But when millions of dollars contributed by physicians and providers are potentially being deployed, every strategy should be pressure-tested.

Including mine. Including theirs. Especially theirs.

Because I fear the PAC may be missing the forest for the trees.

Understanding What Uber Actually Wanted

One of my concerns throughout this process has been that portions of the original Uber ballot initiative were misunderstood.

That matters enormously.

Because you cannot negotiate effectively against an opponent if you misunderstand what your opponent is actually trying to obtain.

Take the much-discussed 25% attorney fee cap.

That limitation addressed attorney fees. It did not erase legitimate medical liens, even though it was spun to you all that way and then the providers trusted what the Legal Lobby was saying rather than reading the initiative knowing California law.

It did not suddenly mean that physicians and providers would receive only out of that same 25% along with the attorneys.

Medical obligations in personal injury cases have historically been paid from the patient’s recovery, and as a priority right before the patient receives the net proceeds ultimately belonging to them if any remain after the law, medical and any other liens are paid.

Those are separate issues.

Attorney fees are one issue. Medical obligations are another.

Conflating the two creates an entirely different picture of what was actually being proposed.

Likewise, I did not read the Uber initiative as an attempt to broadly dictate what every physician could bill throughout the life of every personal injury case.

Its central concern regarding medical specials was evidentiary.

What should a jury be allowed to hear?

Should a jury hear a $150,000 medical bill if someone ultimately purchased that receivable for dramatically less?

Should medical billing figures be used as multipliers or anchors to drive pain-and-suffering awards?

Whether you agree with Uber’s position or not, its stated strategic concern was the use of large medical specials to contribute to large verdicts.

That is very different from telling a medical provider: “You cannot legitimately bill this amount outside of trial.”

Those distinctions matter. In negotiations, they matter tremendously.

Because if you misidentify what the other party truly values, you risk spending enormous energy defending something they were never principally attacking.

And even worse:

You can miss the opportunity to give them what they truly want while preserving what your side truly needs.

That is the foundation of sophisticated negotiation.

Good Motivation. Wrong Analysis?

The medical profession’s concern was understandable. Independent providers were facing a massive political force.

Uber had substantial resources. The Legal Lobby had substantial resources.

Healthcare providers feared being collateral damage. Those fears were not irrational.

But I believe some of the analysis surrounding the original initiative may have overstated certain threats while failing to distinguish between:

• Attorney fee limitations
• Patient medical obligations
• Trial evidence
• Medical billing
• Funding
• Access to care

Those distinctions should have been dissected surgically. Instead, the debate became broad.

Uber bad. Initiative bad. Healthcare threatened. Stop everything.

And I fear we may now be repeating the same strategic mistake.

Not because the PAC doesn’t care.

Because it cares deeply.

But passion can sometimes cause all of us to defend the entire body when only a few organs actually require surgery.

What I Heard at the August 10 Town Hall

I listened carefully to the PAC Town Hall.

And strangely, I thought some of the strongest arguments against the proposed PAC strategy came from the PAC itself.

One point discussed was the political danger of directly attacking SB 623 after powerful stakeholders had negotiated and supported it.

The concern appeared to be that aggressively challenging the law could create political consequences.

I understand that concern.

But from a negotiation standpoint, once the other side knows what you are afraid to challenge, you have revealed something extremely valuable.

Your fear. And fear is leverage.

Uber understood leverage. Uber understood the Legal Lobby would do anything Uber needed it to do in order to protect the right to charge 33% to 60% in attorneys’ fees.

Uber also demonstrated a willingness to take matters to the ballot. It demonstrated a willingness to spend, and spend a lot. A $70 million war chest. It demonstrated that it had alternatives.

And once your opponent understands what you are unwilling to risk, your negotiating position changes.

That is not criticism. That is negotiation reality.

Then Came the Bigger Problem

The PAC also discussed another looming threat.

Cities. Municipalities. Businesses. Industries. Insurers. Other defendants.

They can now look at what rideshare companies obtained and logically ask: Why should Uber and Lyft get these protections when we don’t?

Exactly.

And that is the problem.

Because if the answer is to fight every municipality, every industry, every proposal, every ballot initiative, every business group, and every new legislative push separately, we have transformed one battle into dozens. Perhaps hundreds.

That is not less expensive. That is exponentially more expensive.

And more importantly, it creates a larger political question: Why should California maintain two different personal injury systems?

One for rideshare cases. One for everyone else.

That distinction becomes increasingly difficult to defend as more industries demand equal treatment. And if Sacramento ultimately decides it wants one standard instead of two, what is the easiest political answer?

I fear it is obvious: Why not simply create one statewide rule? Expand SB 623 to all personal injury!

That is the real danger. Not merely SB 623 as it exists today.

SB 623 for everyone.

That is why I believe waiting to fight expansion is the wrong battlefield.

The problematic provisions need to be surgically addressed before expansion becomes politically attractive.

Hundreds of Battles, or One?

This is also where the financial strategy concerns me.

The PPC PAC discussed how extraordinarily expensive ballot battles can become.

We are talking tens of millions. Potentially far more.

Yet at the same time, the proposed strategy seems to contemplate battling expansion as others seek the protections Uber obtained.

Think about that.

If there isn’t enough money to comfortably fight one statewide initiative, how will independent physicians raise enough money to fight ten? Fifty? One hundred? Or to fight SB 623 applying to all PI, where all the deep pockets come to fight for its expansion?

And if the response is to create databases, build competing infrastructure, fund legislative efforts, fight local measures, fight statewide measures, and respond to every future attack, the healthcare profession is spreading limited resources across an enormous battlefield.

That does not appear strategically sustainable.

This isn’t criticism of the PAC’s heart. It is mathematics.

You cannot fund one hundred wars with the resources available for one.

The Database Strategy

Another strategy discussed was developing a new database that could potentially compete against or undermine FAIR Health.

Again, I understand the motivation.

If FAIR Health is being used in a way healthcare believes is inappropriate, then create better evidence. Makes sense conceptually. But conceptually and practically are very different things.

Creating a healthcare-pricing database that becomes nationally reliable, statistically valid, professionally accepted, and ultimately recognized as sufficiently authoritative by courts is not a short-term project. It is not even likely a mid-term project.

That requires data. Enormous amounts of data. It requires standardization. Validation. Methodology. Geographic depth. Coding sophistication. Independent credibility. Legal acceptance. And years of use.

The idea may have merit as a very long-term project.

But it does not solve the problem facing independent medical practices today.

And every dollar and hour diverted into a decade-long solution is a dollar and hour not being used on the immediate battlefield.

Again: Forest versus trees.

The Surgical Strike

Now imagine you are a patient.

Your surgeon walks in and says: “We need to operate on your entire body.”

Your reaction? No way.

Now imagine the surgeon says: “Most of your body is healthy. There are two or three areas creating serious problems. We can surgically repair those areas and leave everything else intact.”

Different answer.

That is how I believe SB 623 should be approached.

Do not repeal the law. Do not attack the entire compromise. Do not demand that Uber admit defeat. Do not demand that the Legal Lobby admit it made a mistake. Do not ask the Legislature to publicly acknowledge that it got everything wrong. Do not put the Governor in a politically impossible position.

Do the opposite.

Applaud the compromise. Acknowledge the policy objectives. Preserve the protections stakeholders genuinely wanted.

Then identify the few provisions creating severe unintended consequences.

And surgically repair only those.

Surgery #1: FAIR Health

If Uber’s concern is nuclear verdicts by juries driven partly by the presentation of high medical specials, address the evidence.

That is the battlefield.

What can the jury hear? What can be argued? What figure can be introduced to establish economic damages?

If policymakers want FAIR Health or another methodology to establish some evidentiary benchmark at trial, that conversation can occur. Many other states have evidentiary limitations based upon, for example, a percentage of Medicare rates.

But why should that necessarily dictate legitimate billing outside trial?

Those are different worlds.

A physician has a practice. Employees. Rent. Insurance. Technology. Compliance. Training. Equipment. Malpractice premiums.

And expertise.

The fact that a jury may be restricted regarding what it hears concerning a medical expense does not automatically mean that same number should control every medical-economic relationship before trial.

Keep the trial protection.

Limit nuclear-verdict concerns.

Do not create a de facto price-control system throughout the entire PI healthcare ecosystem.

Uber still receives a meaningful win. The Legal Lobby can deal with that as it has in many other states. And the Legislature and Governor are happy.

Independent providers survive.

Done.

Surgery #2: Referral Declarations

If transparency concerning attorney-directed referrals is the objective, terrific.

I support transparency.

But place the obligation with the person possessing the information. The law firm. The attorney.

A medical provider frequently receives a patient and knows only: “Law Firm X referred them.”

The provider may not know: Who inside the firm made the referral? Was a case manager involved? Did another provider make the original recommendation? Did the patient request the provider? Was there some other intermediary? Was the referral automatic or vetted?

Only the law firm has complete knowledge of its own internal actions.

So if California wants a declaration under penalty of perjury concerning attorney referrals, place that obligation with the referring party.

That improves accuracy. It reduces unnecessary compliance risk. It preserves transparency.

Uber’s, the Legislature’s, and the Governor’s objective remains protected.

Done.

Okay, so the Legal Lobby won’t like it. Why should they complain? They no doubt shifted that burden from themselves to the medical side during the closed-door SB 623 negotiations. If it’s okay for providers, per the Legal Lobby, it must be okay for their own members. And if they don’t like it, tough. My legal peers earned this one.

Surgery #3: Medical Funding and Patient Access to Needed Care

Medical funding is another area requiring precision.

If the concern is that funded medical bills are presented to juries at inflated numbers that distort verdicts, address what gets presented to the jury.

Do not unintentionally destroy access to funding.

Funding companies provide liquidity. They assume risk. A patient may not recover. A case may fail. A lawyer may withdraw. Liability may collapse. Coverage may disappear. Yet providers still need capital to treat patients. And patients still need care, at the time they need it.

Without medical funding, some injured people will simply wait. Others will go untreated. Others will accept inadequate care because it is all they can access.

That is not consumer protection. It is consumer harm.

If policymakers want evidentiary restrictions at trial, address the evidence. But do not necessarily dictate whether a funding company may profit in exchange for taking risk.

Let the jury focus on the patient’s actual human loss: Pain. Suffering. Functional limitation. Loss of enjoyment. Work impact. Family impact. Psychological impact.

Good trial lawyers know how to tell that story. They do not need a giant medical bill to manufacture humanity.

Preserve legitimate trial reforms. Preserve access to care.

And restricting only the trial evidence use gives Uber, the Legislature, the Governor, and consumers what they want.

Done.

That Is Surgery, Not Amputation

That is the distinction.

Healthcare does not need to destroy SB 623. It needs to correct the provisions most likely to injure legitimate practices and patients.

Uber can still protect itself against the abuses it identified.

The Legislature can preserve the compromise.

The Governor does not need to reverse himself.

Trial attorneys preserve the ability to prove the human impact of injury.

Funding remains available.

Patients retain access to treatment.

Providers retain the ability to operate economically.

And the political message becomes enormously different.

Instead of saying: You got SB 623 wrong.

Say: You accomplished what you intended. Now let us help correct several unintended consequences while preserving the agreement and its fundamental objectives.

That is a very different conversation.

I Asked the PAC to Reconsider

I did not simply sit back and criticize. I spoke directly with PAC leadership the week before the Town Hall. I attended the Town Hall on August 10, 2026. I spoke up during it.

And the following day, August 11, I sent a detailed letter to PAC leadership asking them to reconsider their strategic direction.

Not because I oppose what they are trying to accomplish. Because I want them to succeed.

I asked them to genuinely evaluate the surgical-strike approach rather than dismiss it because it differed from the strategy they had already embraced.

I asked them to pressure-test both approaches. Their strategy. Mine.

Bring in sophisticated legislative strategists. Bring in negotiators. Bring in people who understand ballot politics. Map the stakeholders.

Ask: What did Uber truly need? What did the Legal Lobby truly need? What did the Legislature truly need? What did the Governor truly need? What provisions were essential to the bargain? What provisions were merely accepted? What can be changed without destroying anyone else’s core victory?

That is what sophisticated negotiation looks like.

The Right Battle. The Right Battlefield.

My request to the PAC was simple:

Make sure healthcare is fighting the right battle. On the right battlefield. With a strategy capable of winning.

If the choice is between spending tens of millions, or eventually perhaps hundreds of millions, responding to an expanding series of political wars versus spending a fraction of that on several narrow statutory corrections today, why would we not seriously evaluate the latter?

Maybe the PAC proves me wrong. Great. I hope they do.

Because the objective is not for me to be right.

The objective is for independent medicine to survive and patients to retain access to care.

But I fear the strategy discussed at the Town Hall has little realistic chance of providing meaningful protection in the short or mid-term.

And worse: It may facilitate the greater danger. Expansion of SB 623 to all PI.

Your Call To Action May Already Have Financing Behind It

Earlier in this series, I discussed obtaining an accounting of the millions raised by medical professionals to fight the Uber ballot initiative.

That initiative no longer exists.

So what happens to $6 million raised by the PPC PAC and $5 million that remains in the bank right now?

Here is a novel suggestion: Use it on the fight that can actually be won.

If millions remain available, use those resources to seek targeted legislative corrections.

Not one hundred battles. One.

Not a repeal. A repair.

Not political warfare. Political surgery.

If $5 million, or some similar meaningful amount, remains available, that may not be enough to fight every future statewide and local battle.

And if you get the word out that you need more money and you have this specific plan in place, guess what? You’ll raise a lot more money. More providers and physicians will step up.

Yes, what they have right now may be more than enough to fund a sophisticated legislative strategy focused on a handful of narrow provisions.

Lobbyists. Healthcare economists. Legislative counsel. Public policy experts. Coalition development. Patient advocates. Negotiators. Physicians. Trial lawyers willing to participate. Transportation stakeholders willing to preserve their core protections. Maybe even FAIR Health too, who was also missing at the SB 623 table yet affected by it.

That is a real campaign.

And it is finite.

Action Is More Than Political Reaction

Now let me step away from Sacramento.

Because regardless of whether additional legislation occurs, healthcare providers have work to do.

Professionally. Operationally. Strategically.

Transparency is increasing. Documentation expectations are increasing. Compliance requirements are increasing.

Interdisciplinary collaboration is also increasing.

And patients expect more. Regulators expect more. Courts expect more. Insurers expect more.

Healthcare is changing.

The providers who thrive will be the ones who prepare for that future rather than simply complain about it.

The Future Belongs to Ethical Providers, and an Ethical PI Ecosystem

If there is one message I hope providers take away from this entire series, it is this:

Ethics is not merely the right thing to do.

Ethical practice is increasingly becoming a competitive advantage.

Provide medically necessary care. Document it well.

Charge reasonable and supportable fees.

Communicate honestly.

Put the patient first.

Do those things consistently and you will be far better positioned regardless of how legislation evolves.

And the same ethical challenge applies to every other stakeholder.

Attorneys:

Stop pretending results are guaranteed. Stop the puffery. Stop phantom “admin fees” and “file setup fees” disguised as client costs in contingency cases.

Stop pushing the economic consequences of law-firm business decisions onto medical providers.

And stop treating every medical lien as simply another pot of money to reduce because you control the settlement funds.

Insurers:

When liability is clear, acknowledge it. Evaluate damages fairly. Pay legitimate claims.

Stop forcing years of litigation simply because you possess deeper pockets.

Stop turning delay into leverage.

Transportation companies:

Improve safety. Take responsibility where responsibility exists.

Target unethical providers and law firms rather than creating systems that punish everyone.

Collaborate.

If transparency and limiting nuclear verdicts is your objective, then pursue transparency fairly across the ecosystem and limit the medical evidence that can be presented at trial. Don’t punish good, qualified, quality healthcare providers who heal, because when you do, what’s left for those who use your rideshare app? The lesser quality. Maybe no access to care when they need it.

That would be a tragedy and you as a rideshare company won’t like the blame.

Healthcare providers:

Provide appropriate care. Document medical necessity. Do not overtreat. Do not overbill.

Do not become dependent upon a single law firm or law firms generally.

Do not allow PI to become a predetermined treatment protocol where every patient somehow receives the same care for the same duration and recovers on the same timeline.

Patients are individuals.

Treat them that way.

Documentation Is No Longer Just a Medical Record

Documentation has always supported patient care.

Today it does much more.

It explains medical necessity. It supports communication among providers.

It informs attorneys. It educates insurers. It assists courts. It protects practices.

The strongest documentation does more than record what occurred.

It tells the patient’s healthcare story

I call this: Storytelling Documentation using the Biopsychosocial Approach to trauma-based care

Not exaggeration. Not advocacy. Not turning a doctor into a lawyer.

Accurate, objective, clinically meaningful documentation focused on the biological injuries, the psychological injuries, and the social injuries that are actual impact on someone’s life.

Connect the mechanism of injury. Diagnosis. Symptoms. Functional limitations.

Treatment plan. Medical necessity. Treatment. Response to treatment.

Referrals. Recovery. Residual problems.

And billing.

The medical provider becomes the narrator of the patient’s pain and suffering journey and the road to recovery.

Not by manufacturing the story. By accurately documenting it so that law firms, rideshare companies, adjusters and insurers and their defense counsel, and judges and juries can help facilitate a fair and just outcome. That’s how the personal injury ecosystem should work.

That’s also the goal of my own annual conference called PICareCon being launched April 15-17, 2027. To bring the collaborative biopsychosocial approach and the PI ecosystem together for a better system, better care, and better outcomes.

Think Beyond the Injury

Trauma rarely affects only one body part.

Pain affects concentration. Concentration affects work. Work problems create financial stress.

Financial stress affects relationships. Stress affects sleep. Sleep affects pain.

Pain affects mood. Mood affects recovery. Recovery affects the family.

That is why I believe so strongly in a biopsychosocial approach to trauma-based care.

Patients are not spinal segments. They are human beings.

The providers who understand that will deliver better care.

Make better referrals. Create better documentation.

And ultimately contribute to better legal and claim outcomes.

Collaboration Is the Future

Personal injury care is increasingly interdisciplinary.

Emergency physicians. Primary care. Chiropractors. Physical therapists. Acupuncturists. Pain physicians. Orthopedic surgeons. Neurosurgeons. Psychologists. Neuropsychologists. Occupational therapists.

There are also case managers and attorneys.

Each sees one piece of the patient’s journey.

No one sees everything.

The future belongs to professionals who communicate across disciplines.

And collaboration should not stop with medicine.

Attorneys. Insurers. Healthcare. Transportation companies. Funding companies. Policymakers.

Everyone has legitimate interests.

The solution is not permanent warfare.

It is building an ethics-based system where legitimate interests can coexist

Build Systems, Not Reactions

Every medical practice should use this moment to evaluate internal systems.

Ask:

Do we consistently document referral sources?

Are our coding practices current?

Are our billing practices supportable?

Do our lien agreements reflect current law?

Have we reviewed malpractice and financial-risk insurance?

Does staff understand documentation expectations?

Do we periodically audit compliance?

Are our fees reasonable and defensible?

Do we have protocols for responding to legal requests?

Do we have a system for evaluating law firms?

Do we know the actual referral sources?

Systems make practices resilient. Memory and habit do not.

Invest in Education, Training and Expert Help

Healthcare is changing too quickly for anyone to stop learning.

Clinical education remains essential.

But so does education in: AI incorporation. Documentation. Compliance. Risk management. Healthcare law. Negotiations. Communication. Trauma-informed care. The biopsychosocial model. Business. Profitability. Technology. And leadership.

Train staff. Not just owners.

The more knowledgeable your team becomes, the less every problem has to land on the doctor’s desk.

Attend conferences. Join organizations and associations. Actively participate.

Engage experts. Use coaches.

Use healthcare counsel. Outsource where appropriate.

Build alliances.

Know what you don’t know. Then find someone who does.

Diversify Relationships

Do not build a PI practice completely dependent upon attorneys.

That is dangerous.

Build relationships with: Emergency departments. Primary care physicians. Specialists. Rehabilitation providers such as Chiropractors, Acupuncturists, and Physical Therapists. Imaging centers. Employers. Community organizations. The patients you’ve treated who know you best. And yes, attorneys, especially the good and ethical ones.

But law firms should be one source of growth.

Not the only source.

Your patients know your medical magic better than anyone.

Earn their trust.

Deliver WOW experiences.

Give them a reason to tell others.

And maximize use of the lien network and collaborative care to help each other, as you focus on healing the patient.

A diversified referral network produces a much stronger business and better patient and practice outcomes.

Stay Engaged

One of the greatest lessons of SB 623 is that healthcare providers cannot wait until legislation is already passed before paying attention.

You do not need to become a lobbyist. But you need to stay informed.

Read proposed legislation. Participate in professional organizations. Attend educational programs. And most of all, ask questions … a lot of questions.

Don’t assume what they know is correct, or what you are being told is true.

Speak with policymakers when opportunities arise.

And make sure the organizations claiming to represent you actually understand your business, your patients, and the unintended consequences of what is being proposed.

Do not simply give money.

Give attention. Give input. Demand accountability. Require focused action that has a reasonable probability of success rather then a general approach in many directions costing a lot more and likely going nowhere.

Healthcare providers possess perspectives that very few others have.

Those perspectives matter.

You matter.

Measure Success Differently

For years, personal injury discussions have focused heavily on money.

Settlement values. Collections. Reductions. Reimbursements. Attorney fees. Patient net recovery.

Those things matter.

But they cannot be the only measures of success.

Ask instead:

Did the patient receive timely care?

Was the care medically necessary?

Was it clearly documented?

Were the proper specialists involved?

Was the diagnosis complete?

Did the providers communicate?

Was recovery optimized?

Were psychological barriers identified?

Was function restored?

Did the patient understand the process?

Did the healthcare team act ethically?

Did everyone collaborate?

Did the provider get fairly paid?

Did the attorney get fairly paid?

Was the insurer treated fairly?

Was the defendant treated fairly?

Financial outcomes matter. But they cannot become the sole definition of success.

The Future of Personal Injury Healthcare

I believe personal injury healthcare is entering a new era.

An era demanding greater professionalism. Greater ethics. Greater transparency. Greater collaboration. Greater accountability. And greater respect.

Patients deserve healthcare providers who understand trauma beyond imaging.

Providers deserve a fair opportunity to deliver excellent care and be fairly compensated.

Attorneys deserve reliable medical evidence and medically necessary care that is reasonably billed so they can also receive fair compensation for their work, but not an entitlement to every available dollar.

Insurers, transportation and rideshare app companies deserve honest bills, accurate documentation, and reasonable verdicts based upon legitimate evidence.

Funding companies deserve the ability to operate ethically and earn a reasonable return for real risk.

Society deserves confidence that the entire PI ecosystem works.

Those objectives are not mutually exclusive. They can and should reinforce each other.

My Final Thought

The title of this series is: The Great Betrayal

Some readers may have expected this series to end with anger. Maybe blame. Maybe outrage.

But I hope it ends somewhere more valuable. Responsibility.

Healthcare providers have far more influence over the future of PI medicine than many realize.

Consumers always need good healthcare. They need accurate documentation. They need reasonable billing. They need physicians willing to treat trauma the moment they need it.

They do not always need a lawsuit. They do not always need a law firm.

We can choose transparency. We can improve documentation. We can strengthen interdisciplinary care. We can reject unethical conduct.

We can adopt a biopsychosocial approach to trauma.

We can become better business owners.

And we can advocate for patients as well as ourselves.

That is leadership. And leadership is exactly what this moment requires.

A Final Challenge

If SB 623 teaches us anything, it is that healthcare providers cannot simply react to change.

We must help shape it.

Not through confrontation when collaboration will work. Not through division when common ground exists. Not by protecting every old system simply because it is familiar. And not by fighting one hundred wars when one carefully chosen battle may accomplish more.

The measure of a successful personal injury system is not how well it serves one stakeholder. It is how well it serves them all.

Better Patient Outcomes. Better Provider Outcomes. Better Case Outcomes. Better Claim Outcomes.

That is the future worth building.

And it begins with each of us.

Epilogue

Whether you ultimately support SB 623, oppose it, or find yourself somewhere in between, I hope this series has accomplished one thing:

It made you think.

Healthcare providers deserve to understand the laws affecting their practices.

Patients deserve access to ethical, competent healthcare.

Attorneys deserve a fair system.

Insurers deserve a fair system.

Businesses deserve a fair system.

And policymakers deserve accurate information before decisions are made.

Every stakeholder … providers, attorneys, insurers, transportation companies, funding companies, legislators, courts and patients … shares responsibility for building a personal injury ecosystem worthy of public trust.

The conversation should not end here.

In many ways … it is only beginning.

And if you want your journey to continue with me, I encourage you to get my book on Amazon, “Personal Injury Made Easy,” engage my outsourced negotiating company to champion your practice with law firms through PI Billing Pros, and join my coaching program to level up your team in processes, profits and growth through The Business Advantage Program.

And consider attending PICareCon each year, staring in April 2027.

Visit www.pimadeeasy.com to learn more.