U.S. Sen. Ashley Moody said a vote on girls’ sports proves Republicans just became “the new party of women.”

The remark came during an opening reception for Rescuing the American Dream’s first summit, which kicked off Wednesday evening in Washington. U.S. Sen. Rick Scott is headlining the event, which will focus on how conservatives can advance President Donald Trump’s agenda during his first 100 days in office.

Senate Republicans say they did their part when they tried to pass a ban on transgender athletes participating in women’s sports. But the measure failed on Monday to reach the 60-vote threshold necessary to break a Senate filibuster. No Democrat supported advancing the bill.

At the summit, Attorney General Pam Bondi was also in attendance and said she was flabbergasted that the proposal drew no Democratic support.

“The big picture is, some of these girls, these teenagers, have worked there since they’re little in all their different sports so they can go to college on a college scholarship, and they’ve lost that because men are beating them in women’s sports,” Bondi said.

Moody said she was equally upset at Trump’s address to Congress when Democrats in Congress declined to stand to applaud what once would be seen as successes for the entire country.

“I am the wife of a career DEA agent and now a police officer and administration attorney. They are celebrating that we have brought to justice (Drug Enforcement Agency agent) Kiki Camarena’s murderer,” Moody said, referencing the recent arraignment of alleged drug lord Rafael Caro Quintero.

“It is something that has hung over America for so long. And Donald J. Trump brought justice, and we are celebrating that.”

She said the party should unify around the efforts of Republicans to protect children in the streets and the sports field.

“The fact that they (Democrats) sat on their hands when we talked about Tren de Aragua and MS-13, and all of these people that we have brought to justice, and they didn’t cheer for that, that just shows you who is leading the fight against the real perils and dangers that are facing this nation, and that is the Republican Party,” Moody said.

Post Views: 0

Florida’s homeowners are in crisis. Insurance rates have soared, and Citizens Property Insurance — the state-run “insurer of last resort” — has grown into Florida’s largest property insurer, at one point reaching 1.4 million policies and half a trillion dollars in exposure.

This expansion places every taxpayer at risk when the next major hurricane hits.

This is not just a problem for Citizens policyholders. If Citizens runs out of money after a catastrophic storm, all Floridians with home, auto, or business insurance could face assessments to cover the losses.

The system is broken, and delaying reform only increases costs and risks.

For years, policymakers have attempted to shrink Citizens through “takeouts,” where private insurers selectively assume policies. But this process is too slow and limited. While cherry-picking the best risks has been helpful in removing policies, it generally leaves Citizens with the riskiest policies. We need a structured transition that incentivizes insurers to assume Citizens’ policies to reach “Citizens Zero.”

The Quota Share Model: A smarter approach

A quota share model — a widely used strategy in global reinsurance markets — can shift risk to private insurers while stabilizing Florida’s fragile insurance system. Implemented correctly, this model can phase out Citizens as an insurer and transform it into a risk manager, achieving the goal of  “Citizen Zero.”

Why takeouts alone won’t work

Florida’s reliance on takeouts has failed to meaningfully reduce Citizens’ highest-risk exposure due to several factors:

— High-risk homes – Many coastal properties are uninsurable in the private market under traditional underwriting standards.

— Rising reinsurance costs – Private insurers must purchase reinsurance, and skyrocketing prices make it difficult to take on more Florida policies.

— Market instability – Insurers frequently enter and exit Florida’s takeout market, making one-time policy transfers an unreliable long-term solution.

Citizens dominates in high-risk areas because it offers below-market rates subsidized by taxpayers. As long as homeowners can obtain cheaper coverage through Citizens, private insurers will struggle to compete, perpetuating the cycle.

How the Quota Share Model works

Instead of waiting for private insurers to assume policies selectively, Florida should create structured risk-sharing agreements to encourage insurer participation. A quota share model works as follows:

— Risk sharing – Citizens and private insurers split premiums and financial responsibility for claims at a fixed percentage.

— Private market involvement – Private insurers handle underwriting, claims, and customer service, reducing Citizens’ role.

— Gradual transition – Citizens receives payments for capital costs and a share of premiums, allowing a structured shift to private coverage.

This model distributes risk across multiple carriers, ensuring a stable, long-term shift away from government-backed primary insurance.

Steps to achieve Citizen Zero

To implement this model, Florida should take the following steps:

— Transform citizens into a risk manager – Instead of a full-service insurer, Citizens would become a quota share facilitator, ensuring gradual risk transfer to private insurers.

— Implement competitive bidding – Private insurers bid on quota share participation, promoting market-driven risk-sharing agreements.

— Reduce administrative costs – Citizens eliminates underwriting, claims processing, and customer service, lowering expenses.

— provide temporary state reinsurance – Short-term state-backed reinsurance would encourage insurer participation until the market stabilizes.

— Increase private market participation – Over time, private insurers assume a greater share of policies, eventually privatizing Citizens’ risk entirely.

Case study: Monroe County

If this model can work in Monroe County, one of Florida’s most challenging insurance markets, it can work anywhere. A possible pilot program could include:

— An 80/20 risk split – Citizens initially retains 80% of risk, with private insurers assuming 20% to allow a gradual transition.

— Private market administration – Private insurers manage claims and underwriting, reducing Citizens’ role.

— Competitive bidding – Insurers bid for quota share levels, ensuring efficient risk distribution.

— State reinsurance support – Temporary state-backed reinsurance would attract insurers to the market.

— Gradual phase-out – Private insurers assume more risk as conditions improve, leading to full privatization.

Skeptics may argue that private insurers won’t participate. However, a structured bidding process, temporary state-backed reinsurance, and a gradual transition period would mitigate this concern.

This approach isn’t theoretical — it has been used successfully elsewhere:

— National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) contracts private insurers to handle policy servicing and claims.

— Texas Windstorm Insurance Association (TWIA) employs quota share agreements to shift hurricane risk to private carriers.

— Global reinsurance markets use quota shares to spread risk and stabilize pricing.

Florida has an opportunity to rethink Citizens — not just by shrinking it, but by redefining its role entirely.

A quota share model would transition Citizens from an oversized, taxpayer-backed insurer into a lean, market-driven risk manager. This approach would lower homeowners’ costs, reduce taxpayers’ financial risk, encourage insurers to reenter the market and ensure a stable, long-term insurance solution for Florida.

The goal of Citizen Zero is within reach — but only if we act now. Florida should commission a feasibility study on quota share implementation to assess regulatory changes, insurer participation, and economic benefits.

The next major hurricane is not a matter of if, but when. If we fail to act, we risk catastrophic financial consequences for every Floridian. The time to fix this broken system is today.

___

Former Senator Jeff Brandes is the founder and president of the Florida Policy Project.

Post Views: 0

Legislation that would upend Florida’s unique law barring many medical malpractice lawsuits is again advancing in the Senate.

Families who had little recourse after losing loved ones say change is needed to bring overdue justice to the state’s health care market.

Opponents, most of them in the medical or insurance fields, warn it will make an already expensive industry unaffordable for patients and practitioners alike.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 9-2 to advance SB 734, which would repeal a 35-year-old state statute — 768.21(8) — prohibiting adult children and their parents from collecting negligence and noneconomic damages for medical malpractice.

The law, which detractors have dubbed “free kill,” applies to anyone over 25 seeking medical care in the state, including residents and visitors.

Florida is the only state in the nation with the restriction on its books. Lawmakers passed it in 1990 when the state was trying to rein in increasing medical malpractice costs and attract more doctors to the state.

According to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services data, Florida ranks third nationwide, behind only California and Texas, in the total number of medical malpractice cases and damages paid out.

The bill’s sponsor, Jacksonville Republican Sen. Clay Yarborough, said the law today may have been well-intentioned, but it wrongly singles out “a narrow group of survivors” who, in any other case of negligence, could seek recompense. The exceptions, he continued, run counter to the spirit behind Florida’s Wrongful Death Act of 1972, which reads in part, “It is the public policy of this state to shift the losses resulting when wrongful death occurs from the survivors to the decedent to the wrongdoer.”

“The legislative intent is clear. It was placed in law nearly 20 years before the exceptions at issue were placed in law and is still on the books,” he said.

“I filed (SB 734) because the current exceptions … are unjust and prevent accountability. … While we all understand no amount of money can bring back a loved one, to solely argue from a monetary or economic perspective would be misplaced because no individual and no institution is above accountability.”

At the end of the meeting, Yarborough indicated he is willing to amend the bill to ensure it can secure sufficient support from both legislative changes “and prevent exceptions from remaining on Florida’s books for another year.”

Naples Republican Sen. Kathleen Passidomo agreed there “is not enough money in this world that can compensate someone for the loss of a loved one due to medical negligence,” but she said that’s the central argument against passing Yarborough’s bill as-is.

Passidomo said bad doctors should face more serious penalties, including license revocations and business closures.

“The answer is to hold the wrongdoers accountable,” she said. “Writing a check will not fix the problem.”

Passidomo and Ormond Beach Republican Sen. Tom Leek voted against the measure, but Leek did not explain his vote.

SB 734, as it’s currently written, does not cap noneconomic damages, meaning plaintiffs could, in some cases, secure damages that might bankrupt some health care providers found liable for negligence.

It would also likely increase malpractice insurance premiums in Florida, which are already among the highest nationwide.

Those were the main issues for roughly a dozen advocacy organizations, companies, and medical professionals who urged Senators to vote down the bill on Tuesday.

They included the Florida Chapter of the American College of Physicians, Senior Consumers of America, Florida Hospital Association, Florida Insurance Council, and Florida Orthopaedic Society. Medical malpractice insurers ProAssurance Corp. and The Doctors Company, as well as the Florida Justice Reform Institute and Florida Chamber of Commerce, sent representatives to oppose the measure.

Adam Basford of Associated Industries of Florida advocated for a “more holistic approach” that considered the quality, accessibility, and cost of health care equally.

Retired OBG/YN Miriam Ramirez said she had to stop delivering babies due to the cost of medical malpractice insurance. Daniel Daube, a physician and surgeon who has worked in Panama City for more than 30 years, said that Florida needs more practitioners in the state for better care — something SB 734 would help prevent.

Kathryn Magar, Vice President of Claims and Insurance at hospital operator Health First, said the bill would make her company’s four medical facilities all but uninsurable.

“I’ve yet to meet a clinician who got into the medical profession to cause harm,” she said. “The ‘free kill’ term is, quite frankly, offensive.”

But according to a dozen or so family members who advocated for SB 734 at its first Senate stop, there isn’t a more concise term to describe their tragic experiences and frustration with the existing law.

Sabrina Davis told the story of her 62-year-old veteran father, who died of an undiagnosed blood clot. The Florida Department of Health determined his blood work was below the standard of care and amounted to medical malpractice, but his 84-year-old physician was nevertheless permitted to continue practicing medicine after paying a $7,500 fine and taking a class.

“Florida is better than this,” she said. “I believe we can attract good doctors and get rid of the bad ones. I don’t like to use this term, but in a way, this (law) is providing sanctuary for bad medicine.”

Cindy Jenkins, whose daughter Taylor died two years ago at 25 due to what she described as “horrific negligence” at a hospital in St. Johns County, said medical malpractice premiums are high in Florida because Florida has a lot of medical malpractice.

“The way you decrease medical malpractice premiums is to stop medical malpractice,” she said. “My child is a free kill. I have no justice.”

Lauren Korniyenko’s 70-year-old mother died in a hospital two days after what she called an “uncomplicated surgery to repair a fractured hip.” Brevard County law enforcement cordoned off the room as a possible homicide scene, she said, and the autopsy revealed staff ignored at least 10 “critical signs of a surgical site infection” that led to her death.

“In an era focused on greater scrutiny of government spending, this law enables the waste and abuse of taxpayer money,” she said. “Medicare’s investigation of my mother’s death found that the doctor failed to appropriately evaluate my mother’s condition, yet it could not refuse payment without a malpractice judgment, something that our family cannot possibly obtain without this law.”

Representatives from AARP Florida and the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans signaled support for the measure.

Lawmakers have tried for years to nix Florida’s 35-year-old “free kill” law. This is Yarborough’s second consecutive year doing so.

His bill last year (SB 248) initially did not cap claims on noneconomic damages. He later amended the item to include ones for up to $750,000, but the bill stalled out in its second Senate stop after clearing the Senate Judiciary Committee on an 8-2 vote.

Other lawmakers have filed similar bills for the 2025 Session, including SB 616 by Fort Myers Republican Sen. Jonathan Martin, whose co-sponsor, Zephyrhills Republican Sen. Danny Burgess, is also a co-sponsor of SB 734.

In the House, Orlando Democratic Rep. Johanna López and Fort Pierce Republican Rep. Dana Trabulsy are carrying HB 6017, which is co-sponsored by Davie Democratic Rep. Mike Gottlieb.

HB 6017 — which, like Yarborough and Martin’s bills, has no caps on damages — advanced Wednesday with unanimous support from the Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee.

SB 734 will be next heard by the Senate Appropriations Committee on Health and Human Services before going to a floor vote. HB 6017 has one more stop at the House Judiciary Committee before it’s subject to a full vote by the chamber.

SB 616, meanwhile, awaits a hearing before the first of three committees to which it was referred — all the same as those assigned to SB 734.

Post Views: 0