Future medical damages turn on two things in both states: medical proof that the care is reasonably certain to be needed, and credible evidence of its reasonable value. Here is how each state frames it — and where the recent law actually landed.
RESOURCES · 8 MIN READ
Future medical care is recoverable in both Missouri and Kansas, but plaintiffs have to prove it, and the proof has two distinct parts: that the future care is reasonably certain to be required, and that the dollar figure attached to it reflects reasonable value. Recent statutory and case-law changes have shifted how past medical bills are valued in both states; it is important not to confuse those past-bill rules with the separate analysis that governs future care.
Kansas allows an injured plaintiff to recover the reasonable value of medical care, including the cost of care reasonably certain to be incurred in the future. Kansas courts have long required that future damages rest on more than speculation: the plaintiff must show a reasonable basis for computation that lets the trier of fact estimate the loss, and damages that are too conjectural will not support recovery (see McKissick v. Frye, 876 P.2d 1371 (Kan. 1994)).
On valuation, the Kansas Supreme Court's decision in Martinez v. Milburn Enterprises, Inc., 233 P.3d 205 (Kan. 2010), is central. The court held that both the amount originally billed and the amount accepted by the provider in full satisfaction are admissible, while the source of any payment remains inadmissible under the collateral source rule — and that the finder of fact determines the reasonable value from that and other evidence. Kansas statutes reinforce that the amount actually charged is not conclusive as to reasonable value, and that evidence the reasonable value differs from the charged amount is admissible. The practical result is a hybrid, reasonable-value approach in which the jury weighs competing evidence rather than being bound to any single number.
Missouri's collateral-source statute, RSMo § 490.715, was amended effective August 28, 2017. The amended statute centers on the "actual cost" of care — broadly, amounts actually paid plus any remaining amount still owed after contractual discounts and write-offs. This narrowed the earlier framework that had developed under Deck v. Teasley, 322 S.W.3d 536 (Mo. banc 2010), which arose under a prior version of the statute. Missouri courts have since clarified that the statute's permissive language means actual-cost evidence is admissible but not necessarily mandatory in every instance (see Brancati v. Bi-State Development Agency (Mo. App. E.D. 2018)).
The key point for future-care purposes: § 490.715 and the cases construing it are largely about past special damages and what the jury may hear regarding bills already incurred. They do not convert future medical care into an "amount paid" exercise — there is no paid amount for care that has not happened yet. Future medical in Missouri continues to require competent medical testimony that the care is reasonably certain to be needed, with the cost established as reasonable. Missouri courts have long accepted expert testimony that a defendant's conduct placed the plaintiff at increased risk of future consequences as a basis for future-damage recovery.
Strip away the state-specific labels and both jurisdictions require the same two things for future medical care. First, a medical basis: testimony, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the injury will require specific future treatment. Second, a value basis: credible evidence of what that treatment reasonably costs, not a discounted insurer rate and not a speculative guess.
This is why discounted "amount paid" figures are a poor fit for future care even where they have gained ground for past bills. There is no negotiated payment for treatment that lies in the future; the question is its reasonable value in the patient's market. Usual, customary, and reasonable (UCR) charge data — the kind reflected in FAIR Health's benchmarks at a defined percentile, adjusted to the patient's geographic area — speaks directly to that reasonable-value question.
A physician reviewed and attested Future Care Projection is built to answer both halves of the test in one document. The physician supplies the medical basis, defining and attesting to the future treatment the documented injuries reasonably require. The cost figures are drawn from usual, customary and reasonable data geo-zipped to the client's treating location, speaking to reasonable value rather than discounted rates. Because the future treatment is bundled into CPT-coded episodes with ICD-10 diagnoses, the projection ties each cost to a defined service and a documented condition — the structure that makes a future-medical number difficult to dismiss as vague.