[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6325883,"mediaKeyId","2330642-9bf3585c38783f1ebff6d8c7f09b9103","parentId",2330642,"title","Assembly bill would curtail aggressive medical‑debt collection: protect wages, homes and credit reporting","audioSeconds",2919,"startMs",7415000,"endMs",10334000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2330642-9bf3585c38783f1ebff6d8c7f09b9103&start=7415&end=10334","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2330642-9bf3585c38783f1ebff6d8c7f09b9103/thumbnail_7415000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6325883/Nevada/Assembly-bill-would-curtail-aggressive-medicaldebt-collection-protect-wages-homes-and-credit-reporting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6325883-2588cbffdc27e92fbd97b6ffb98e6c90/orig.mp4?Expires=1775398994&Signature=gWVQpjxWBucNQF0C7Cq4QND7qqPis9PFVomDBnHPrh6CnvJIrhUIjXw9sm-jWjktpvkP0~NAN4RS-St9bfCmOmvStQtRmq~W87JsoqMJAIXlmPbVRmM5xSkUzF0SWL2EN1THaMIS5xGUdGDAVLZwAs1eEfnqSAycW0jRebvHJiiFUmDIa0GAFvcuaTwWIlcpDo7pg4vTM6cJ9c5BoTbk6bzx3XOhq4uU7ecIJx-kgBKXfeAvTfKvRcCkVrf-hCXcOB1wrH5FApeXBzH~BEzbesN0~rCoHl~LT6Ds6xD~-gbAupK3r7xzlkEemNTU0yrT51fzTWbmDC0Q-SPFo6ll6w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Nevada Legislature","date","2025-02-17T00:00:00Z","article","Assemblymember Max Carter introduced Assembly Bill 204 as a package of consumer protections that would restrict several aggressive collection practices for medical debt, including reporting medical debt to credit reporting agencies, arrest for medical debt, liens and foreclosures on a consumer’s primary residence, garnishment of wages or seizure of tax refunds and bank accounts in many cases, and other “extraordinary collection actions.”

Carter told the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor the bill aims to give patients more time to resolve insurance appeals, enroll in financial assistance, or set up payment plans before a provider or collector takes extreme collection steps. “These are common sense solutions that help patients pay back their debt while still allowing hospitals and doctors to collect payments,” Carter said in his presentation.

Patient advocates, nonprofits and several labor and community groups testified in support. Adam Zarin of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society said medical debt is fundamentally different because illness is involuntary and high out‑of‑pocket costs can exceed families’ ability to pay; he said the measure protects patients’ financial stability without stopping collection entirely. Carissa Pierce of the Children’s Advocacy Alliance and callers from organizations including NAMI Nevada, the Nevada AFL‑CIO, Make the Road Nevada and others described personal and community harms from medical debt, including blocked access to housing or credit and stress that deters care.

Hospitals, creditors and other industry representatives testified in opposition or expressed concerns. Patrick Kelly for the Nevada Hospital Association said many hospitals already offer hardship programs and discounted care and warned that broad prohibitions on collection and credit reporting could shift costs to other patients and undermine providers’ ability to recoup legitimate charges. Other opponents included the Nevada Rural Hospital Partners, receivables industry groups, the Nevada Credit Union League and the Nevada State Medical Association; attorneys and trade groups urged narrowing definitions and expressed concerns about impacts on settlements and existing statutory exemptions (for example, homestead exemptions cited by a witness).

Committee members questioned scope and practical effects. Some members asked whether removing lien or garnishment tools could discourage providers or collectors and exacerbate provider shortages; sponsor and advocates pointed to other states (Texas, New York) that have limited garnishment with continued functioning health systems. Several members asked about timing elements in the bill: AB 204 would require a provider to wait 180 days after sending a first bill and provide a 30‑day written notice before taking extraordinary collection actions, and would require that patients be informed about financial assistance programs and that refunds be returned within 60 days where due.

The bill assigns enforcement authority to the Nevada Attorney General rather than creating a private right of action; supporters said this reduces the risk of large numbers of private lawsuits and concentrates enforcement with the state. Opponents asked for precise definitions (the receivables industry and credit reporting trade group recommended adopting a CFPB‑aligned definition of medical debt) and warned of federal preemption issues tied to the Fair Credit Reporting Act if states attempt to regulate elements already covered by federal law.

Ending: The committee did not vote on AB 204. The sponsor and his staff said they would continue stakeholder discussions to narrow definitions and address concerns about unintended consequences for hospitals, lenders and the credit system.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2/17/2025 - Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor","oneSentenceSummary","Assemblymember Max Carter told the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee that Assembly Bill 204 would protect patients by blocking the reporting of medical debt to credit bureaus and by forbidding many extreme collection actions — including liens on primary residences, wage garnishment, and seizure of bank accounts — until specified procedural steps occur.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature NV, Nevada","taxId",78440,"location","Nevada","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6325886,"Nevada bill targets delivery apps over ‘ghost kitchens’; restaurants press for verification and stronger penalties",2074,4094000,6168000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2330642-9bf3585c38783f1ebff6d8c7f09b9103&start=4094&end=6168","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2330642-9bf3585c38783f1ebff6d8c7f09b9103/thumbnail_4094000.jpg","/articles/6325886/Nevada/Nevada-bill-targets-delivery-apps-over-ghost-kitchens-restaurants-press-for-verification-and-stronger-penalties","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6325886-edadb08b7bf4fd405f37f2a96ccf0a33/orig.mp4?Expires=1775398994&Signature=GfJcjqhUFjGKZgkpp5QGEj0aZ7tYvjW-HSTqFPcwDAlyYA3OmmjWngtAmK4q8Bws7rAei5GsW-Fd8iJnMEd8E9Z0XlUVoPQdSrHBKFAy49kKKvfWRuMYuE6Xvec6LtYlDYna24ZcSBYOxSTVgH-c9YdZIl~--9-7z3ZfqsArR45XqRT3Nuvh6SvLOhV~N7WsCzuhNKb3V1KYwaqaV-uhMmp6-6xBw6mre5afnXmHjsVu~hM98ZGrGDfbGKOhr~xOoxYlnj34Ka5NzhrFcFRFlMfd9qsPjMGiEEb4T9abh~GFeGUqYXzKiUpJb~U7tJNjA03M25MwkINOAH9a1P1A5Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Assemblymember Selena Torres Fawcett, sponsor of Assembly Bill 116, told the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor that the bill is intended to hold food delivery platforms accountable for listings that misrepresent origin, quality or licensing of food sold through their apps.

Torres Fawcett said some delivery‑only operations, often called ghost kitchens or virtual brands, appear on apps without a storefront or with names that mimic established restaurants. She said platforms must have “a responsibility of vetting the businesses on their platforms,” describing consumer safety and unfair competition concerns when a virtual brand uses another restaurant’s name or when a vendor lacks a health permit.

Restaurant owners testified with specific incidents. Christina Martin of Manitza’s Pizza told the committee she repeatedly ordered food listed under her restaurant’s name on Uber and watched drivers pick up items that were not prepared by her business; she said the substitute operator had poor health inspection records. James Trees, chef‑owner of Esther’s Kitchen, said an unaffiliated operator used his logo and images, offered items he does not serve and drew 1‑star reviews that harmed his reputation. \"They were using my platform and my brand to siphon off business,\" Trees said.

Supporters — including the Nevada Restaurant Association and individual owners — urged the committee to require platforms to verify that a listed business holds the appropriate local business license and health permit. Some speakers proposed misdemeanor penalties and stronger fines; those backing the sponsor said small fines (for example, an amendment Uber proposed capping fines at $500) would not deter large platforms.

Platform representatives said they share the public‑safety interest but urged narrower language and operational clarity. AJ Dila for Uber said the company supports the intent to ensure legitimacy and safety but offered amendments to clarify licensing, jurisdiction and penalty language. Mark Fiorentino, counsel for DoorDash, said platforms invest in anti‑fraud measures and want to work with the sponsor to produce workable verification procedures. Kemfer Crowell, representing DoorDash, and Griffin Company for Uber both requested more detail about verification cadence, what constitutes a valid permit, and how platforms would be held liable for suspended or fraudulent permits.

Committee questions focused on scope (which businesses qualify as \"food dispensing establishments\"), what checks are sufficient, and penalty levels. Committee counsel noted “immediate consumption” is the usual frame for defining a food dispensing establishment and that meal‑prep or grocery‑style services may fall outside that definition.

The committee did not take a vote; the sponsor said she expected continued negotiations and called for stronger enforcement than platform‑proposed amendments. Speaker Yeager asked platform counsel to provide a written description of current platform practices for preventing and responding to fraudulent listings.

Ending: The hearing highlighted a split between restaurateurs seeking verification and stronger penalties and platform representatives seeking narrower statutory language and operational detail; the sponsor and interested companies agreed to continue talks.","Assembly Bill 116 would require delivery platforms to verify business licenses and health permits for businesses listed on their apps; restaurant owners told lawmakers ghost kitchens and fraudulent listings have harmed reputations and public safety, while platforms pushed for narrower language and operational clarifications.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6325892,"Nevada bill would require landlords to quote rent including mandatory fees, ban hidden portal charges",2792,1333000,4125000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2330642-9bf3585c38783f1ebff6d8c7f09b9103&start=1333&end=4125","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2330642-9bf3585c38783f1ebff6d8c7f09b9103/thumbnail_1333000.jpg","/articles/6325892/Nevada/Nevada-bill-would-require-landlords-to-quote-rent-including-mandatory-fees-ban-hidden-portal-charges","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6325892-98dc078e552f200f42be4c921c0804f8/orig.mp4?Expires=1775398994&Signature=jbJsW-yHSnDek8ISh1zZljGcl~f6Cp1kJEjvOUlDDtOvtpNIjFKi83sdKr2xlsfqjFss9O1FGQ-YxKa5dJab3bNMu5z73Dlma-y9ipnpRo5sJ6MIBS5CtClDvCGtpq4PdI9umoa~3yfi7~4c~M2Pw2gBdcwSXt0Fw5kmBgKzNvNXu9cYlW~JVOAgAW7c-cpWlNKVICjIEJX4OwD0763qrBNsgrZJhVGTmqGIIZtSWtmpZMpfbwwZnWOlJ-O2Wt8c12NbIZqsHUN3Cf8YAEZxBVJBmyJC~hIx8IIFHQmoOO43CREXK3uwTXJsAH7cJpMtRFUgu4aesRcBoDCyA8VrUg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Assemblymember Venetia Considine (Assembly District — for the record Venetia Considine), sponsor of Assembly Bill 121, told the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor that the bill would require landlords and property managers to disclose the full monthly cost of renting by including any nonoptional fees when quoting rent.

The measure is aimed at transparency for renters who, Considine said, can be lured by advertised base rents that do not include mandatory recurring charges. “The complaint against Greystar ... is that it routinely advertised deceptively low rates to lure in renters,” she told the committee, citing recent Federal Trade Commission actions as part of the bill’s background. Considine said AB 121 also would require landlords to provide a free payment option that does not force tenants to give banking information to a third‑party portal and to disclose portal fees separately in written rental agreements.

Supporters say the bill prevents surprise costs and unfair competition. Jonathan Norman of the Nevada Coalition of Legal Service Providers said the bill would give consumers essential information: “We’re not asking, we’re asking that people know what they’re signing up for and what they’re agreeing to.” Testimony from Clark County and the Nevada State AFL‑CIO supported the bill as a tenant protection and fairness measure.

Committee members pressed the sponsor for details on how usage‑based charges would be treated. Assemblymember Kasama, who owns property management businesses, asked whether pass‑through items such as trash, sewer and water could still be billed separately. Considine said the bill’s intent is that mandatory monthly charges be reflected in a single periodic rent figure so prospective tenants comparing listings see the true monthly cost. She suggested landlords could calculate an annual charge (for example, trash service) and divide it by 12 to include it in the quoted rent, but acknowledged that truly variable costs such as monthly water usage present practical complications and said the bill seeks options that preserve landlords’ ability to recover costs while delivering clarity for tenants.

Opponents raised concerns about compliance burdens and civil penalties. John Sandy of the Nevada State Apartment Association said smaller landlords could be exposed to complex disclosure requirements and significant remedies for errors, and he asked for carve‑outs or flexibility for genuinely unforeseeable charges. Several small landlords who testified said municipal lien rules (for example, for unpaid water or trash) have led owners to keep utilities in the landlord’s name and bill tenants, and they asked the committee to consider that practical context.

Considine told the committee she does not intend the bill to require retroactive amendment of existing leases. She said the bill would take effect on a future date so that leases signed before that date would not need to be rewritten midterm.

The committee did not take a vote at the hearing. The sponsor and stakeholders indicated willingness to continue negotiations and possible small technical amendments.

Ending: The committee heard multiple supportive and opposing witnesses and a series of technical questions from members; the sponsor said she will continue stakeholder meetings and may bring a small amendment to clarify the treatment of variable utility charges and enforcement mechanics.","Assembly Bill 121 would require landlords and property managers to list rental prices that include all nonoptional monthly fees and to offer at least one free payment method; supporters say the measure protects tenants from surprise costs, while landlord groups warn it could shift unpredictable utility or usage costs onto owners.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Assembly bill would curtail aggressive medical‑debt collection: protect wages, homes and credit reporting

Nevada bill targets delivery apps over ‘ghost kitchens’; restaurants press for verification and stronger penalties

Nevada bill would require landlords to quote rent including mandatory fees, ban hidden portal charges