Home > Managing Debt > Scratching Medical Debt from Credit Reports: The Cons

Comments 4 Comments

Earlier this month the Medical Debt Responsibility Act of 2011 was introduced by U. S. Representative Heath Shuler.  In summary, the bill would require credit reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, TransUnion, etc.) to remove paid or settled medical collection items up to $2,500 per collection from credit reports.

[Related Article: Scratching Medical Debt from Credit Reports-The Pros]

Unpaid medical expenses may take the form of a medical collection item when the unpaid medical bill is turned over to a collection agency and may be reported to the credit reporting agencies. The collection item can remain on the credit report for up to seven years and can negatively impact a consumer’s credit score. The exact impact on the credit score will vary depending on the medical collection information reported as well as on the overall composition of the consumer’s overall credit profile.

Do I support this proposed action?

While I can appreciate the difficult decisions some consumers have to make regarding paying for healthcare-related expenses, I do not think it in the best interest of all US consumers and of the credit granting industry in general to subjectively modify credit data and credit scores through policy decisions.

The decision to block or remove any data item from a credit report should be considered carefully and should include a thorough analysis on how that data element is predictive of future risk. The industry research I have seen consistently shows that consumers who have a medical collection on their credit report pose a greater risk of not paying as agreed in the future compared to consumers with no collections on their credit report. That is why the presence of medical collection items on credit reports are often considered to be “high risk” by lenders and within credit scoring systems.

If this information is suppressed, these borrowers may appear less risky than they really are and, as a result, may take on additional credit they can’t safely handle and thus prolong the cycle of missing payments and increasing their cost of credit. This can also result in an increase in the cost of credit for all consumers as lenders will inevitably spread the cost of these losses via higher interest rates and fees for all new borrowers.

If the medical collection information is inaccurately reported, then the consumer should have every right to dispute that data and the parties (consumer, credit bureau, collection agency, medical service provider) should engage in the established dispute resolution process to correct any reporting error. If that process is not working, then the focus should be on addressing how it can be improved rather than enacting a decision to remove the data element from credit reports.

Lastly, the industry has already proactively addressed this issue to some degree. Both the FICO score and VantageScores incorporate logic where small dollar “nuisance” collection items are either not considered in the score calculation or factor into the score is a less severe way, and thus have less negative effect on the score.

In my opinion, this is the type of question or issue that the newly formed Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) should research so that any go forward decisions can be made based on empirical findings in addition to public policy drivers.

[Resource: Get your free Credit Report Card]

Image: rosmary, via Flickr

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

  • Victoria Mar

    I feel that your opinion does not take into the account the nuisance it causes the consumer who has to fight inaccuracies from medical bills/medical collections or disputes with health insurance companies. I think there should also be some sort of government policy to improve this system as well.

    As someone who has had a medical dispute with my health insurance provider lead to an unpaid medical bill, (that should have been paid by a health insurance provider) that was then sent to a collections agency which severally impacted my credit score for a measly $70 and what would remain on my credit report for 7 years. There is no regard to my prior superb credit history of paying all my bills and paying them on time. The presence of the medical collection on my credit report does in no way indicate that I will not pay my student loans off, my mortgage, my credit cards or any other debts owed for that matter. However, the system is severely flawed and even though I pay a bill that has been sent to collections it remains on as a derogatory mark on my credit report.

    I do think it in the best interest of all US consumers to subjectively modify credit data and credit scores through policy decisions. There are millions of US consumers just like me and I fully support this measure.

  • Donna Phillips

    I agree with Victoria Marr (above comment) I pay my bills on time. It is not my fault that the medical insurance companies fight not to pay medical bills they owe! I have 5 medical bills on my credit that are listed all under $16 each! This is because I had 2 insurance policies that continued to fight each other on who would have to pay. So I am being punished for being over insured.

  • LT

    I wonder if the statistical analysis Mr. Quinn is referencing (the one which showed a positive correlation between unpaid medical bills and the same consumers’ general payment history) actually ISOLATED the factor of the incidents of medical collection and other delinquencies. It stands to logic to wonder if someone who is going though financial hardship and falls behind on ALL of their obligations may be viewed as a higher risk than someone who generally pays all of their bills and only falls behind on the medical expenses, does it not?

  • Seth R

    I am currently helping someone clear up their credit (via a Power of Attorney). I can see some of the issues folks get involved with when dealing with medical debt. That now makes me a proponent of medical debt removal.

    Several things happen here when insured.
    1. The hospital bills the insurance company and gets paid at some point. Of course, the insurance company pays part and the hospital bills the rest. This COULD take months. Then the hospital places you in arrears.

    2. The smart people go back and look at was was billed, paid and disallowed (happens a lot). I found that insurers may disallow something that “was included in another procedure.” Double billing. But, the hospital tries to collect. This argument can take months to clear up also.

    3. The hospital bills what THEY say is the “co-pay” and/or “deductible.” However, with Medicare and supplimentals, there is an “amount you may be billed.” This takes out the disallowed items. That is another argument.

    4. The most recent bill I started to clear up that is in collections led me to pull the complete admission file. Guess what? She never signed ANYTHING!! The hospital never collected insurance information from her. The excuse is, “It was a motor vehicle accident. We don’t get insurance information. We send it to Med 1 and they collect all of that for us later.” What? She had insurance (through her husband) AND it happened while working–her employer’s insurance was liable also. Why would she respond to Med 1? Never heard of them!!

    5. A 5-1/2 yr old debt in collections. The hospital states, “We don’t have that debt any more. We wrote it off.” Why? “because of the statute of limitations,” the hospital said. Another one they never sent to insurance. Their answer is, “You can try to send it to them, but it is old and they won’t do it.” What? The hospital was negligent and the patient has to now pay it all? Not in my book.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team