Opinion of the Court by
ACOBA, J.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 602-5(2) (1993) and Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 13(a) (2000)1 to answer the following certified questions by the United States District Court for the District of Ha-wai'i (the district court)2 to this court:
Where a plaintiffs healthcare expenses are paid by Medicare and/or Medical, does the discounted amount paid to a healthcare provider by [Medicare3] and Medi-Cal constitute the amount that should be awarded as medical special damages to a plaintiff in a negligence action? In this circumstance, is evidence of amounts billed in excess of the amount[]paid irrelevant and inadmissible?
For the reasons set forth herein, the answer to both questions is “no.”
[83]*83i.
The questions posed arise out of a medical malpractice action in which Plaintiffs-Appel-lees Joseph Bynum (Joseph) and his wife Lila Bynum (Lila) (collectively the Bynums), sued to recover damages for injuries Joseph allegedly suffered in connection with coronary artery bypass grafting surgery.
While vacationing on the Big Island of Hawai'i in July of 1998, Joseph experienced chest pains. Initially, Joseph went to North Hawai'i Community Hospital for treatment, and was later transferred to the Queen’s Medical Center (Queen’s) in Honolulu, for further treatment. Dr. Joana Magno (Mag-no), a cardiologist at Queen’s, assumed responsibility for coordinating Joseph’s care as his attending physician. Magno consulted with Dr. Michael Dang (Dang), a cardiovascular surgeon, and Dr. John Callan (Callan), a pulmonologist, and recommended that Joseph undergo bypass surgery on an urgent basis. Magno did not advise the Bynums that Joseph could try alternate treatments, such as medical therapy or angioplasty, but presented surgery as his only option. At the time Magno recommended bypass surgery, she knew Joseph had experienced respiratory failure two years earlier, and recognized that his history of lung disease was a “red flag” to bypass surgery.
During the bypass surgery performed by Dang, Joseph suffered respiratory distress, which required him to be placed on mechanical ventilation for the remainder of his life. After spending three months in Queen’s, Joseph was transferred to six different intensive care facilities in California.
From the time of the surgery, Joseph was eligible for Medicare, which initially paid for his medical bills. However, to allow Joseph to become eligible for Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program, and to protect their life savings from the costs of Joseph’s ongoing hospitalization, the Bynums legally divorced on February 11,1999.4
Joseph lived in intensive care facilities for over 1,314 days after the surgery, and was dependent upon the ventilator for the rest of his life, passing away on February 21, 2002.
II.
The Bynums filed a lawsuit against Magno, Dang, Callan, and Queen’s (hereinafter, collectively, Defendants), on December 30,1999, prior to Joseph’s death.5 During discovery, the Bynums produced medical bills, which reflected the “standard” or “customary” charges (hereinafter “standard rates”) for the services provided by the medical facilities in which Joseph had resided. Prior to trial, the parties entered into a stipulation regarding those bills,6 in which they agreed, inter alia, that the medical bills “reflect[ed] medical treatment for [Joseph] that was necessary for medical conditions that existed during the time of treatment^]” and were for amounts “similar to charges made by similar or comparable health care providers for like services in the same geographical area.”
On February 6, 2001, Magno and Callan filed a motion in limine to limit Joseph’s recovery of his medical expenses to only those fees actually paid to his healthcare providers as full and final payment for the services. In this regard, Defendants sought to preclude the Bynums from introducing, as evidence of special damages, the standard rates for Bynum’s medical care that might have been billed to other patients for comparable treatment. Additionally, Defendants asserted that “a patient cannot be held liable for any medical expenses that exceed the amount approved by Medicare or actually paid by Medicare and Medi-Cal payments to a healthcare provider.”
The district court denied the motion, and did not limit the evidence of special damages to the amount charged by Medicare/Medic[84]*84aid. Accordingly, when the jury trial commenced on March 13, 2001, the medical bills introduced reflected amounts similar to charges made by comparable health care providers for like services in the same geographical area.
The jury returned it’s verdict on April 4, 2001, and on May 2, 2001, the district court entered judgment against Magno in the amount of $2,063,750.00 for Joseph ($1,462,-500.00 in special damages and $601,250 in general damages), and $107,250 for Lila (in general damages). Additionally, the district court dismissed with prejudice all claims against Callan, Dang, and Queen’s, pursuant to a stipulation for partial dismissal.
Magno appealed the judgment to the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the Ninth Circuit), asserting, inter alia, that “the district court erred by submitting the amount of the medical expenses billed by [Joseph’s] healthcare providers to the jury as the reasonable value of their services, instead of the lesser amount negotiated by [Medi-eare/Medicaid].” The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the ease for a new trial.7 Declining to resolve the issue of special damages, the Ninth Circuit posited that
the novel question under Hawai'i law whether the discounted amount paid to a healthcare provider by Medieaid[8] and Medi-Cal reflects the amount that should be awarded to a plaintiff in a negligence action might well be a suitable candidate for certification.
Accordingly, the district court, upon remand, submitted its certified questions to this court.
III.
Joseph’s healthcare providers, as required of provider participants in the Medicare9 and/or Medicaid10 (hereinafter Medicare/Medieaid) programs, agreed in advance to accept the Medicare/Medicaid approved payments as full and final payment for their services. Such payments are set at rates lower than the standard rates that providers might charge other patients who did not participate in these programs.- These payments then, by definition and as posed by the Ninth Circuit, are “discounted” from the standard rates otherwise charged for comparable medical treatment. Joseph’s healthcare providers, as participants in these programs, were statutorily prohibited from “balance billing” Joseph or any other source for amounts above the Medicare/Medicaid approved charges.
IV.
In response to the certified questions presented, the parties raise several arguments. Magno argues that a plaintiff whose health care expenses are covered by Medicare/Medicaid, is entitled to recover the amount of the Medicare/Medicaid approved payments, and nothing more, because (1) principles of compensatory damages do not permit recovery for more than the actual costs incurred for medical services; (2) the collateral source rule does not entitle a plaintiff to recover [85]*85amounts in excess of the Medieare/Medicaid approved payments, inasmuch as (a) the amount of the Medieare/Medicaid “discount” is not a “benefit” belonging to the plaintiff under the collateral source rule, (b) limiting a plaintiffs recovery to the amount of the approved payments does not result in a windfall to the defendant, and (c) unlike private insurance arrangements where the collateral source rule has been applied, this ease does not involve the payment of premiums by the plaintiff; and (3) amounts billed in excess of the Medieare/Medicaid approved payments are irrelevant and inadmissible in a tort action.
The Bynums, on the other hand, assert that Joseph’s recoverable medical expenses should be based upon the standard rates, because (1) the policies behind the recovery of damages for personal injury tort victims are not analagous to the principles of “compensatory damages” in property damage cases; (2) the collateral source rule applies, inasmuch as (a) the “ ‘discount^]’ created by the lower fee schedules” are “unquestionably a benefit to Medieare/Medicaid recipients[,]” (b) the programs “benefitted” Joseph by preventing the providers from “balance billing” him for the full amount, (c) if Joseph was not eligible for Medieare/Medicaid, “he would have been liable for the full amount of his medical bills,” and thus, (d) “allowing [Mag-no] to reduce her liability by virtue of [Joseph’s] participation in Medieare/Medicaid would indeed result in a windfall for [Magno], which is exactly what Hawai'i collateral source rule prohibits”; and (3) because the collateral source rule applies to all Medi-eare/Medicaid benefits, evidence of standard rates is relevant and admissible for (a) determining the reasonable value of medical services, (b) understanding the extent of the plaintiffs injuries, and (c) providing a foundation for future medical care and expenses.
AARP filed an amicus brief in this case. It maintains that millions of elderly and low income individuals rely on Medicaid for their health care, and urges this court to follow jurisdictions which have applied the collateral source rule to Medieare/Medicaid benefits. Essentially, ARRP argues two primary reasons for applying the collateral source rule. First, AARP notes that a “court can either reward the tortfeasor by making them [sic] responsible for an amount less than the full amount of the plaintiffs medical services or a court can award the entire amount of damages to the injured person even though the victim did not pay for the serviees[; thus, i]f there is a windfall, the innocent plaintiff should benefit, not the defendant.” Secondly, citing Joseph M. Engle, Comment: Gratuitous Nursing Services Rendered by Extended Family Members and Other Third Parties: Can Injured Patties Receive Reimbursement Under Wisconsin’s Collateral Source Rule?, 85 Marq. L.Rev. 1003, 1009-10 (2002), AARP asserts that “[allowing a plaintiff to recover from collateral sources ensures that the plaintiff will be fully compensated[, a]n injured party can never be fully compensated for permanent injuries[,]” and, “[t]hus, while the collateral source rule may allow a plaintiff to receive a larger award than he or she appears entitled, the amount the plaintiff actually receives comes closer to full compensation for [the] loss.”
V.
Inasmuch as the questions presented involve the scope of special compensatory damages, the underlying principles relating to damages in the personal injury context are pertinent. Compensatory damages seek to “compensate the injured party for the injury sustained,” Kuhnert v. Allison, 76 Hawai'i 39, 44, 868 P.2d 457, 462 (1994), in hopes of “restor[ing] a plaintiff to his or her position prior to the tortious act[,]” Zanakis-Pico v. Cutter Dodge, Inc., 98 Hawai'i 309, 327, 47 P.3d 1222, 1240 (2002) (Acoba, J., concurring). The law divides such “damages into two broad eategories-general and special.” Ellis v. Crockett, 51 Haw. 45, 50, 451 P.2d 814, 819 (1969). General damages “encompass all the damages which naturally and necessarily result from a legal wrong done[,]” id., and include such items as “pain and suffering, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment which cannot be measured definitively in monetary terms.” Dunbar v. Thompson, 79 Hawai'i 306, 315, 901 P.2d 1285, 1294 (App.1995) (citation omitted). Special damages are “the natural but not the necessary result of an alleged wrong[,]” Ellis, 51 Haw. [86]*86at 50, 451 P.2d at 819, and are “often eonsid- ■ ered to be synonymous with pecuniary loss and include such items as medical and hospital expenses, loss of earnings, and diminished capacity.” Dunbar, 79 Hawai‘i at 315, 901 P.2d at 1294.
The “collateral source rule,”11 in general, provides that benefits or payments received on behalf of a plaintiff, from an independent source, will not diminish recovery from the wrongdoer. Ellsworth v. Schel-brock, 235 Wis.2d 678, 611 N.W.2d 764, 767 (2000). “Under the collateral source rule, a ‘tortfeasor is not entitled to have its liability reduced by benefits received by the plaintiff from a source wholly independent of and collateral to the tortfeasor[.]’ ” Sam Teague, Ltd. v. Hawai'i Civil Rights Comm’n, 89 Hawai‘i 269, 281, 971 P.2d 1104, 1116 (1999) (quoting Sato v. Tawata, 79 Hawai'i 14, 18, 897 P.2d 941, 945 (1995)).
Similarly, the Restatement (Second) of Torts: Damages (hereinafter Restatement) § 920A, entitled “Effect of Payments Made to [an] Injured Party,” establishes ■that, under the collateral source rule, “[p]ay- ■ ments made to or benefits conferred on the injured party from other sources are not credited against the tortfeasor’s liability, although they cover all or part of the harm for which the tortfeasor is liable.” Restatement § 920A(2) (emphasis added).12 Comment b to § 920A, entitled “Benefits from collateral sources,” further explains that although double compensation may result to the plaintiff, such a benefit should redound to the injured party rather than “become a windfall” to the party causing the injury:
The injured party’s net loss may have been reduced correspondingly, and to the extent that the defendant is required to pay the total amount there may be a double compensation for a part of the plaintiffs injury. But it is the position of the law that a benefit that is directed to the injured party should not be shifted so as to become a windfall for the tortfeasor.
Restatement § 920A cmt. b (emphases added). Ultimately, comment b explains that “it is the tortfeasor’s responsibility to compensate for all harm that he causes, not confined to the net loss that the injured party receives.” Id.
While acknowledging that “[p]erhaps there is an element of punishment of the wrongdoer” in the rule, the Restatement indicates that “[p]erhaps also this is regarded as a means of helping to make the compensation more nearly compensatory to the injured party.” Id. The Restatement further declares that the rule “that collateral benefits are not subtracted from the plaintiffs recovery applies to the following types of benefits: ... [g]ratuities[ ] ... [and s]ocial legislation benefits.” Restatement § 920A cmt. c(3)-(4) (emphasis added). As to social legislation benefits, the Restatement explains that “[i]f the benefit was ... established ... by law, [the plaintiff] should not be deprived of the advantage that it confers.” Restatement § 920A cmt. b.
With the aforementioned authorities in mind, we consider the certified questions.
VI.
In an action to recover medical expenses caused by a defendant’s negligence, a [87]*87plaintiff must show that the medical services obtained were necessary and the charges were reasonable as required for the injuries sustained. See Reinhardt v. County of Maui, 23 Haw. 524, 527 (1916). In that connection, the “reasonable value”13 of a plaintiffs medical services may be recovered. See Kometani v. Heath, 50 Haw. 89, 95, 431 P.2d 931, 936 (1967) (affirming that it was proper for the jury to consider the “reasonable value” of future medical expenses); Walsh v. Chan, 80 Hawai'i 188, 193, 907 P.2d 774, 779 (App.) (acknowledging the lower court’s jury instructions as stating that a plaintiff is entitled to damages for the “reasonable value of the medical services”), rev’d on other grounds, 80 Hawai'i 212, 218, 908 P.2d 1198, 1204 (1995).
Although the parties do not dispute that the medical bills introduced at trial reflected medical services necessary for Joseph’s medical condition, they disagree, as previously mentioned, on how to calculate the “reasonable value” of such services in light of the Medicare/Medicaid benefits.
VII.
A.
Magno points to cases which have concluded that the Medicaid/Medieare programs and rates do not fall within the scope of the collateral source rule. Such eases have based their decisions on essentially two grounds: (1) no one incurs liability for any charges above the Medicare/Medicaid payments,14 see Suhor v. Lagasse, 770 So.2d 422, 427 (La.Ct.App.2000); Terrell v. Nando, 759 So.2d 1026, 1031 (La.Ct.App.2000); Hanif v. Housing Auth., 200 Cal.App.3d 635, 246 Cal.Rptr. 192, 195-97 (Ca.App.1988); Dyet v. McKinley, 139 Idaho 526, 81 P.3d 1236, 1239 (2003), and (2) because no consideration is exchanged, Medicare/Medicaid discounts are not “benefits of the bargain” received by beneficiaries as a result of obtaining Medicare/Medicaid insurance. See Suhor, 770 So.2d. at 427. Inasmuch as the collateral source rule applies to both gratuities and social legislation benefits, we believe such arguments are not determinative of the applicability of the rule.
B.
As previously noted, the Restatement declares that the collateral source rule applies to “gratuities,” explaining, for example, that “the fact that the doctor did not charge for his services or the plaintiff was treated in a veterans hospital does not prevent his recovery for the reasonable value of the services.” Restatement § 920A, emt. c(3). See Pryor v. Webber, 23 Ohio St.2d 104, 263 N.E.2d 235, 240 (1970) (explaining that the great weight of authority is that the payment of wages, whether the result of a contract or simply a gratuity does not reduce the damages otherwise recoverable); see also Roundhouse v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 604 F.2d 990, 994 (6th Cir.1979) (explaining that the collateral source rule applies even if payments are gratuitous). Hence, whether anyone incurs liability for any charges, or whether such benefits are “bargained for” or contractual in nature, is not determinative as to whether the rule applies. See Ellsworth, 611 N.W.2d at 767-69 (concluding that the collateral source rule allows recovery of the reasonable [88]*88value of medical services without consideration of gratuitous medical services rendered or payments made by outside sources on the plaintiffs behalf). Gratuitous services and payments, by their very nature, are given without consideration, are not “benefits of the bargain,” and do not impose any legal obligation of repayment.
Rather, because a plaintiff would be able to recover the “reasonable value” of medical services if such services were rendered gratuitously, it would appear to follow that a plaintiff should be allowed to recover the “reasonable value” of such services, even if Medicare/Medieaid had already paid a part, or a discounted amount, of the “reasonable value” of such services. See Pryor, 263 N.E.2d at 238-39 (acknowledging that the collateral source rule has been applied to “gratuitous physician’s fees” as well as medical expenses gratuitously paid by a plaintiffs brother). Because a plaintiff like Joseph is not required to pay the difference between the standard rate and the Medicare/Medicaid payment, that part of such medical services attributable to such difference could be viewed conceptually as gratuitous service to the plaintiff, so as to come within the collateral source rule.
C.
But, as previously observed, the Restatement applies the collateral source rule to certain “types” of benefits such as social legislation benefits, listed as “social security benefits, welfare payments, pensions under special requirement acts.” Restatement § 920A, cmt. c(4). Medicare/Medicaid are medical insurance programs for those in need, such as the elderly, disabled, and low-income individuals. See Suhor, 770 So.2d at 424 (explaining that “Medicare is our country’s basic health insurance program for people 65 or older and many people with disabilities”); Children’s Hosp. & Health Ctr. v. Belshe, 188 F.3d 1090, 1093-94 (9th Cir.1999) (relating that Medicaid provides federal and state funds to “defray expenses incurred in providing medical assistance to low-income individuals”).
As aptly described by the North Carolina Supreme Court, “Medicaid is a form of insurance paid for by taxes collected from society in general. The Medicaid program is social legislation; it is the equivalent of health insurance for the needy.” Cates v. Wilson, 321 N.C. 1, 361 S.E.2d 734, 737-38 (1987) (citation omitted); see also Ellsworth, 611 N.W.2d at 768; Suhor 770 So.2d at 424; Children’s Hosp. & Health Ctr., 188 F.3d at 1093-94. Likewise, this court has recognized that the “purpose of medicaid is to provide assistance to those whose income and resources are inadequate to meet the costs of necessary medical services.” Barham by Barham v. Rubin, 72 Haw. 308, 312, 816 P.2d 965, 967 (1991). Thus, Medicare/Medicaid payments are a “type” of social legislation benefits.
Accordingly, we cannot agree with Mag-no’s assertion that Medicare/Medicaid programs are simply fee “agreements between the government and healthcare providers for their mutual benefit, independent of the interests of Medicare/Medicaid recipients.” (Emphasis added.) Although Medicare/Med-ieaid programs involve fee agreements that are mutually beneficial to the government and the participating healthcare providers, such accommodations appeal’ secondary to the essential purpose of Medicare/Medicaid, which is to provide medical assistance to the needy.
This court has followed the same approach. In Sam Teague, this court agreed with the United States Supreme Court that unemployment benefits paid by the state to the plaintiff, “were not made to discharge any liability or obligation of respondent, but to carry out a policy of social betterment for the benefit of the entire state,” which “plainly show[s] the benefits to be collateral.” 89 Hawaii at 283, 971 P.2d at 1118. In much the same way, the Medicaid/Medicare programs provide benefits for plaintiffs “from a source wholly independent of and collateral to the tortfeasor[.]” Id. at 281, 971 P.2d at 1116 (citations omitted). Because the Medicare/Medicaid program prohibits “balance billing,” the difference between the standard rate and the Medicare/Medicaid payment may be viewed as a part of the “benefits conferred on the injured party” within the [89]*89scope of the collateral source rule. Restatement § 920A(2).
Inasmuch as Medieare/Meclicaid are social legislation programs, we conclude that the collateral source rule applies to prevent the reduction of a plaintiffs award of damages to the discounted amount paid by Medi-eare/Medieaid.15 See Haselden v. Davis, 353 S.C. 481, 579 S.E.2d 293, 294 n. 3 (2003) (holding that “the collateral source rule ap plies to Medicaid payments”); Brandon HMA, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 809 So.2d 611, 619 (Miss.2001) (holding, by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, “that Medicaid payments are subject to the collateral source rule”); Ells-worth, 611 N.W.2d at 767 (applying the collateral source rule to medical expenses paid directly by Medicaid); Cates, 361 S.E.2d at 738 (explaining that Medicaid is “social legislation; it is the equivalent of health insurance for the needy” and “is an acceptable collateral source”); Thomson v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transp. Co., 56 Wis.2d 231, 201 N.W.2d 745, 752 (Wis.1972) (holding that the collateral source rule applies to Medicare, and “is not limited to paid-for benefits but applies to gratuitous medical services provided or paid for by the state”); see also Restatement § 920A cmt. c (explaining that “social legislation benefits” are subject to the collateral source rule); cf. Sato, 79 Hawai'i at 18, 897 P.2d at 945 (referring to the collateral source rule and HRS § 386-8 in prohibiting evidence of compensation benefits for the sole purpose of reducing the amount of the plaintiffs recovery). Therefore, we hold that the collateral source rule prohibits reducing a plaintiffs award of damages to reflect the discounted amount paid by Medicare/Medicaid.16
VIII.
Other jurisdictions have applied similar rationale in deciding that the reasonable value of medical services should be determined in light of the standard rates, rather than the amount paid to Medicare/Medieaid. See Ellsworth, 611 N.W.2d at 767-70; Haselden, 579 S.E.2d at 294-95. Ellsworth exemplifies these jurisdictions. In Ellsworth, as in the present case, the parties disputed whether the “reasonable value” of “medical assistance” benefits provided by the government 17 should be limited to the actual amount paid to the health care provider, or the reasonable value of such medical service which was substantially higher. Ellsworth, 611 N.W.2d at 766-68. The court there indi[90]*90cated that “Medical Assistance is a means of providing gratuitous medical services paid for by the state ... for certain low-income individuals” that is “funded jointly by the federal and state governments.” Id. at 767. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin rejected the tortfeasor’s argument that “because [the plaintiff] did not personally incur any liability for her.medical expenses she is not entitled to an award of damages ... or to the benefit of ... the collateral source rule.” Id. at 768.
It explained that “[t]he general rule is that a plaintiff who has been injured by the tor-tious conduct of the defendant is entitled to recover the reasonable value of medical and nursing services reasonably required by the injury. This is a recovery for their value and not the expenditures actually made or obligations incurred.” Id. at 769 (quoting 22 Am.Jur.2d Damages § 207 (1965) (emphases added)). According to the Wisconsin court, under this general rule, “medical and nursing services rendered gratuitously ... [would] not preclude the injured party from recovering the value of those services as part of his compensatory damages. Id. (quoting 22 Am. Jur.2d Damages § 207). Hence, it held that “the injured plaintiff may recover the reasonable value of gratuitous medical services as part of his compensatory damages.” Id.
As to defendant’s argument “that recovery for past medical expenses should be limited to the amount paid by Medical Assistance because this amount is the reasonable value of services provided,” id, the Wisconsin court declared that “in most cases” the reasonable value of medical costs “is the actual expense, but in some eases it is not. But the test is the reasonable value, not the actual charge.” Id. (emphasis in original).
It explained that “[t]he collateral source rule seeks to place upon the tortfeasor full responsibility for the loss he has caused,” such that the tortfeasor “is not entitled to reap the benefit of [plaintiffs] eligibility for public assistance or from the government’s economic clout in the health care market place.” Id. Hence, the Ellsworth court rejected the defendant’s arguments that the “reasonable value” of medical services should be limited to the “amount paid” by Medicaid. Id.
Similarly, the Supreme Court of South Carolina, in Haselden, held that “the collateral source rule applies to Medicaid payments,” 579 S.E.2d at 294 n. 3, indicating that an award for medical damages should reflect the standard rates for medical services, and should not be reduced to the discounted amount. paid by Medicaid. The appellate court declared that “[c]learly, the amount actually paid for medical services does not alone determine the reasonable value of those medical services[, n]or does it limit the finder of fact in making such a determination.” Id. at 295 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The court explained that limiting “damages in the amount actually paid by Medicaid is contrary to the purposes behind the collateral rule and would result in a windfall to the defendant tortfeasor.” Id. Thus, the South Carolina Supreme Court determined that recovery for medical expenses was “not limited by the amounts paid by Medicaid.” Id. at 294 n. 3.
IX.
While other jurisdictions have limited medical special damages to medical expenses paid, these decisions appear to have rested upon the courts’ interpretation of specific language in a state statute,18 to have misapplied the Restatement,19 or to have been [91]*91criticized or narrowed in their own jurisdictions.20 '
Two such jurisdictions, as relied on by Magno, have held that the “reasonable value” of medical services, in the context of awarding damages, is limited to the amount paid by Medicare/Medicaid. See Hanif 246 Cal.Rptr. at 193-97 (interpreting medical expenses, in a ease involving Medicaid, as “representing actual pecuniary loss”); Moorhead v. Crozer Chester Med. Ctr., 564 Pa. 156, 765 A.2d 786, 790 (2001) (concluding, in a case involving Medicare, that the reasonable value of medical services was limited to the amount paid). Such cases are not persuasive, for aside from being distinguishable, both the Hanif and Moorhead courts relied on the explanation of the term “value” described in Restatement § 911, comment h. See Hanif, 246 Cal.Rptr. at 196-97; Moorhead, 765 A.2d at 789.
But as employed in § 911,21 the term “value” means “the exchange value,” and that
the exchange value of property or services is the amount of money for which the subject matter coidd be exchanged or procured if there is a market continually resorted by traders, or if no market exists, the amount that could be obtained in the usual course of finding a purchaser or hirer of similar property or services.
(Emphases added.) Comment h only pertains to the “value of services rendered” in the context of ascertaining the “measure of recovery of a person who sues for the value of his services tortiously obtained ” or when a plaintiff “seeks to recover for expenditures made or liability incurred to third persons for services rendered.” (Emphases added.) This definition of “value of services rendered” is inapplicable, for the present ease does not involve a provider who is suing for the value of the medical services provided or who seeks to recover expenditures incurred to third persons.
On the other hand, Restatement § 924, entitled “Harm to the Person,” is directly applicable to determining the reasonable value of medical services for an injured person. That section is part of the Restatement’s topic of “Compensatory Damages for Specific Types of Harm.” Restatement § 924 provides that “[o]ne whose interests of personality have been tortiously invaded[22] is entitled to recover damages for the past or prospective ... reasonable medical and other expenses.” Restatement § 924(c). Restatement § 924, comment f, entitled “Expenses,” reaffirms that “an injured per[92]*92son is entitled to damages for all expenses and the value of services l'easonably made necessary by the harm.” (Emphasis added.) In line with the collateral source rule, comment f cites to § 920A, and instructs that “[t]he value of medical services made necessary by the tort can ordinarily be recovered although they have created no liability or expense to the injured person, as when a physician donates Ms services.”23 Id. (emphasis added). Hence, we believe Restatement § 911, comment h, is not germane to the questions posed.
X.
We concur, then, with those jurisdictions that have held that a plaintiff, injured by the tortious conduct of a defendant, is entitled to recover the reasonable value of medical services and is not limited to the expenditures actually paid by Medieaid/Medicare. See Ellsworth, 611 N.W.2d at 769 (explaining that “the test” for determining an award of medical expenses “is the reasonable value, not the actual charge”); Haselden, 579 S.E.2d at 295 (explaining that the amount actually paid for medical services does not alone determine the reasonable value of those medical services); see also Restatement § 920A, cmt. b (explaining that “it is the tortfeasor’s responsibility to compensate for all harm that he causes, not confined to the net loss that the injured party receives”).24
XI.
Such a conclusion is consistent with the established practice in Hawai'i courts for determining special damages for medical services, as embodied in Hawai'i Civil Jury Instruction No. 8.9.25 The instruction does not limit special damages to the amount charged, but instructs that plaintiffs are entitled to damages for “the reasonable value of the the medical services provided.” Hawai'i Civil Jury Instruction No. 8.9 (emphasis added). Jurors are thus instructed that plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for medical treat[93]*93ment, but these damages are not limited to out-of-pocket expenses. Id.26
XII.
Moreover, allowing a particular plaintiff to recover the reasonable value of medical services leads to a more just result. The consequences of a contrary approach may penalize the recipient of Medieare/Medicaid payments. AARP reports in its amicus curiae brief, that “[Medieare/Medicaid], parts of the Social Security Act, together compromise the nation’s largest source of public health insurance ... and long term care services for the poorest and most vulnerable in society.” AARP maintains that “[a]pplying the collateral source rule helps to ensure that low-income elderly and disabled individuals are treated equitably vis a vis privately insured individuals by compensating for aspects of the [Medieare/Medicaid] programs that would substantially limit, if not completely eliminate, the beneficiary’s recovery of special damages.” Cf. Masaki v. Columbia Cas. Co., 48 Haw. 136, 142, 395 P.2d 927, 930 (1964) (citing Kopp v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., 6 Wis.2d 53, 57, 94 N.W.2d 224, 225 (1959) for the proposition that “[i]t would lead to a highly absurd and socially undesirable result to construe the medical payments coverage clause of the defendant’s [automobile] policy so as to hold that recovery for the costs of hospital services provided to the insured may be recovered in [the] case” where a person purchases an insurance policy that provides reimbursements, but not by a person enrolled in a group plan in which affiliated hospitals agree to provide certain hospital services for the payment of a premium).
AARP observes that “federal and state law[s] require, as a condition of Medicaid eligibility, that beneficiaries assign rights to third party payment for medical expenses, including tort recovery. 42 U.S.C. § 1396k(a) (2003); [HRS] § 346-37 (2003).[27] ... Only after the federal and state governments are reimbursed for medical expenses, is the [Medieare/Medicaid] beneficiary entitled to payment. 42 U.S.C. § 1396k(b) (2003).” In this regard, AARP reasons that, “[b]ecause the tort recovery of individuals receiving care paid by private payers is not subject to a setoff by the government, [Medicare/Medicaid] beneficianes ivill always be entitled to less special damages.” (Emphasis added.) Hence, AARP argues that “[ajpplying the collateral source rule in these eases helps to ameliorate the substantial gap in recovery of damages” between Medieare/Medicaid beneficiaries, and those who are privately insured.
XIII.
The dissent contends that the majority’s holding “allows the recovery of an amount which does not fall within one of the permissible categories of damages,” thereby “creating a new category of damages without justification.” Dissenting opinion at 98, 101 P.3d at 1166. This contention rests upon the dissent’s conclusion that “[a]s a form of compensatory special damages,” an award of “medical expenses is limited to the pecuniary loss” incurred by the plaintiff. Id. at 96, 101 P.3d at 1164. Despite the dissent’s protestations to the contrary, no existing precedent in this jurisdiction has so held. This case comes before us by way of certified question based upon the Ninth Circuit and the federal district court’s determination that the special [94]*94damages issues certified herein presents a “novel question under Hawaii law.”
Moreover, limiting medical expenses to the pecuniary loss suffered by a plaintiff would mean, for example, that injured plaintiffs who received gratuitous medical services, were treated at a veteran’s hospital, or were covered by medical insurance plans such as offered to Kaiser Hospital patients would not be entitled to recover any monetary amount from the tortfeasor (except perhaps nominal out-of-pocket fees), see Masaki, 48 Haw. at 138-39, 395 P.2d at 928, because, according to the dissent, plaintiffs recovery is limited to pecuniary loss, which would not be present in these situations. Not only would such an approach be contrary to the “great weight of authority in this country,” Pryor, 263 N.E.2d at 240, but this approach is contrary to this jurisdiction’s long established approach to allowing an injured plaintiff to recover for the “reasonable value of the medical services.” See discussion supra part XI.
Finally, adoption of the dissent’s position would create various new categories of plaintiffs, similarly injured whose recovery would depend upon the type of their insurance coverage, and not upon the nature of their injuries. The incongruity of the dissent’s position is further evident for its effect on future medical expenses. Patients such as those receiving treatment at military hospitals and Kaiser would not be entitled to future medical expenses. This would inevitably invite trial disputes regarding the plaintiffs continuing indigency or the likelihood of a plaintiffs change in insurance coverage in the future and its consequential effect on the amount of recovery. See infra Part XIV.
XIV.
Therefore, in answer to the district court’s first question, the amount of medical special damages awardable to a plaintiff in a negligence action is not limited to the discounted amount paid to a healthcare provider by Medicare/Medicaid. Inasmuch as we hold that the collateral source rule prohibits reducing a plaintiffs award of medical special damages to reflect the discounted amount paid by Medicare/Medicaid, we consider the district court’s second question.
Because the “reasonable value” in awarding damages to a plaintiff for medical services is not limited to the amount billed to healthcare providers by Medieare/Medicaid, the answer to the district court’s second question is, “No.” As indicated previously, the standard rates are relevant and should be admissible for establishing the reasonable value of medical costs constituting such special damages. See Haselden, 579 S.E.2d at 294 n. 3 (holding that “the collateral source rule applies to Medicaid payments”); Ells-worth, 611 N.W.2d at 767 (applying the collateral source rule to medical expenses paid directly by Medicaid); Cates, 361 S.E.2d at 738 (explaining that Medicaid is “social legislation; it is the equivalent of health insurance for the needy” and “is an acceptable collateral source”); Thoreson, 201 N.W.2d at 752 (holding that the collateral source rule applies to Medicare, and “is not limited to paid-for benefits but applies to gratuitous medical services provided or paid for by the state”); Brandon HMA, Inc., 809 So.2d at 619 (holding, by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, “that Medicaid payments are subject to the collateral source rule”); see also Restatement § 920A, comment c (explaining that “social legislation benefits” are subject to the collateral source rule).
Moreover, we agree with the statement of the Supreme Court of Ohio that receipt of such payments should not be admitted in evidence to reduce damages “[s]inee, by the collateral source rule, the receipt of collateral source benefits is deemed irrelevant and immaterial on the issue of damages[J” Pryor, 263 N.E.2d at 239. The Ohio court reasoned that “[t]he entire theory of the collateral source rule is to keep the jury from learning anything about the collateral income so that it will not influence the decision of the jury” for the purpose of reducing the award of damages. Id, (quoting Wolfe v. Whipple, 112 Ill.App.2d 255, 251 N.E.2d 77, 82 (1970)).
Further, in regard to future public benefits, the Supreme Court of North Carolina opined persuasively that the collateral source rule should also preclude “defendants from offering evidence demonstrating that plain[95]*95tiffs can mitigate their damages by using public resources” such as Medicaid. Cates, 361 S.E.2d at 738. In so holding, the court explained that the “goal of the law of damages is to place an injured party in as nearly the same position as he would have been had he not been injured.” Id. In deciding that a plaintiffs future medical costs should not be limited to the rates charged by Medicaid, the Supreme Court of North Carolina reasoned that a contrary rule would detract from full recovery.
Forced dependence on public charity because of injuries tortiously inflicted puts the injured party in a position more disadvantageous than if he were freed from his dependence. Full compensaticm that frees the injured party from dependence on charity is more in keeping with the compensatory goal of tort recovery .... The Plaintiff should be able to recover the cost of future medical services, since he is likely to prefer private care, and it is his “right” to have it. It may be that he will employ the free care for which he is eligible and thereby receive a “windfall,” but ... at the time of suit there is no way of knowing what he will choose to do.
Id. (emphases added) (citations omitted). Additionally, the court noted that “the collateral source rule should apply to possible future public benefits” because (1) “the lack of certainty characterizing the availability of public resources renders it unwise to allow mitigation of damages premised on their continued existence,” and (2) the “utilization of many of these benefits hinges on a plaintiffs continued indigency.” Id. at 738-39. Hence, on the grounds set forth herein, “the amounts billed in excess of the” Medicare/Medicaid “amount paid” are not irrelevant or inadmissible on the issue of medical special damages.
XV.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed herein, the answer to each of the district court’s certified questions is, “No.”