Update on New Hampshire's early offer proposal

I have been following (and commenting on) a proposed measure in New Hampshire to create an alternative to litigation based on "early offers."  As I argued here and here, there are some good aspects to the proposal and some negative ones.

Now the TortsProf blog is reporting that the House version of the proposal has been amended.  Under the Senate bill, if the claimant requested an early offer and then declined it, the claimant would have to prove gross negligence to a clear and convincing standard.  In the House version, if the claimant requested an offer and then declined it, the claimant would have to pay the health care provider's attorney's fees if the claimant lost or recovered approximately the same amount of money that was in the early offer.

One problem I have with these proposals is that there is a lot incentive for the (and pressure on the) plaintiff to accept the offers, but little incentive for the defendant to make sure the offer is fair.

Or, am I missing something?