[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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",[32,75],{"_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":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6268046,"mediaKeyId","3058445-863554f25a1737f1e507d38fc4a9ab98","parentId",3058445,"title","Representative North offers amendment to S27 to narrow eligibility, add \"good faith\" payment requirement for medical‑debt relief","audioSeconds",632,"startMs",828000,"endMs",1460000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3058445-863554f25a1737f1e507d38fc4a9ab98&start=828&end=1460","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3058445-863554f25a1737f1e507d38fc4a9ab98/thumbnail_828000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6268046/Vermont/Representative-North-offers-amendment-to-S27-to-narrow-eligibility-add-good-faith-payment-requirement-for-medicaldebt-relief","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6268046-4398acb901f53f1d0938d7d1646406e6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771190505&Signature=HdsgdIzUU2bNgUCyAWhHsCRL7QtXZY-SiC0i0WCC2SbYPvCDFHxLPzMCi29i9A0mMYfkFnPllw~jjuHpSnsvWYAXXIoE5E21wzw2RLH2oCj3usE1J4~Y5KtVQ3Pg2PH9FNzPZKNVKdRZjsGaDX9ieBzElJYayZ3F~BZ1zK1sT5~aG-eEjf7zooJlebXO5ZK8m99CuvZR7uAcIkQ5Snpb9Z-9tFadzHB6vj9P2mTmGojBmr2SgFFeeXj6Ml7nYKejwkudVLeH4q0QMA80KIezVy2A11bQuym-UH467szSVNr5pohOagP8Kj-KRPZIzRNsoWjwY9FriWNdiA3DhUnsXg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-19T00:58:33Z","article","Representative North presented an amendment to S27 on April 8 that would (1) reduce the income eligibility threshold for medical‑debt relief from 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL) to 300% of FPL and (2) require that a debtor demonstrate a “consistent good faith effort” to make payments on the medical debt before relief is granted.

North said the change is intended to focus limited funds on people with the greatest need. Using 2025 figures discussed in the committee, members noted 400% of FPL for a family of three equates to roughly $104,000 a year, and 300% is “a little less than $80,000,” figures cited during discussion to explain the practical effect of the change.

On the good‑faith requirement, North described it as a standard legal term and said courts could adjudicate disputes about whether an individual made a good‑faith effort; she offered examples such as a minimal monthly payment (for example, $10 per month) as evidence of effort. Committee members pressed for clarity about how good faith would be verified and whether requiring payments could unintentionally exclude the poorest debtors who are unable to make any payments. One member said poverty‑level debtors might not be able to make even token payments; another asked whether every write‑off would have to go through the court system, and staff counsel was noted as present to advise on that point.

Members also discussed practical implementation: one speaker described how medical debt is commonly handled by electronic sale to debt buyers or collection agencies, noting the process is often automated; another said the state treasurer would likely contract with a nonprofit to manage the program and should have flexibility to examine applicants and set criteria. Several members said they could not support a payment‑history requirement that would exclude people at the lowest incomes, and the committee debated the tradeoff between targeting limited funds and ensuring access for those with the greatest need.

The transcript records the amendment being described and debated but does not record a formal committee vote or final adoption of Representative North’s amendment in the portion of the transcript provided.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Healthcare - 2025-04-18 - 8:30 AM","oneSentenceSummary","Representative North introduced an amendment to S27 proposing to lower income eligibility for medical‑debt relief from 400% to 300% of the federal poverty level and to require debtors to show a consistent good‑faith effort to pay.","taxTitle","Health Care, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",30956,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6268051,"Committee considers amendment to define “behavioral health” in S27 to avoid out‑of‑state interpretation",809,8000,817000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3058445-863554f25a1737f1e507d38fc4a9ab98&start=8&end=817","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3058445-863554f25a1737f1e507d38fc4a9ab98/thumbnail_8000.jpg","/articles/6268051/Vermont/Committee-considers-amendment-to-define-behavioral-health-in-S27-to-avoid-outofstate-interpretation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6268051-168f8e0f5e0874595ef97ec68a5bd844/orig.mp4?Expires=1771190505&Signature=ljfkAprKLwqV7E5AHFgpmi54zTWzAmfK-tJdeppIsj0cSyk4eWFeyJOtkc72BpzdOGolGvy3PewUAunoZSHqJakFpYU4s01449zVNG0Yem1S7wvcUyBxP7~sF7j0USASYrbJVCR~8rEy5rGIkklrvM-OutHTypNFcG2yK18hpD~eyd3ZYQ0SgZrBWHAaX0l9ASPh0Fq2gQYDJaiQr4GKcOHscwv2V3OstJUbDQ1Lz7g04NpRTZArGcV4HZE3JuBJ2W33xleUaq-g09z94sy~V0mCrg6j9xsWTGkdWQEMgTjpPMzcrv8RbS2gyQFMdgF1CDTSLUsQboOk26ksBTDHgw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Donahue introduced an amendment to bill S27 on April 8 that would add a three‑sentence definition of the term “behavioral health” to the bill’s health‑care definitions to prevent other jurisdictions’ broader uses of the term from creating a loophole.

The amendment’s language, as explained to the committee, would (1) set out conditions that could be interpreted as part of behavioral health beyond the commonly understood categories of mental health and substance use disorders; (2) state that the term may have a stigmatizing impact and could deter individuals from seeking care; and (3) say that, where jurisdictions interpret “behavioral health” more broadly, the bill’s language may nevertheless include the broader meaning only for the limited purpose of avoiding questions about the statute’s intended scope.

Proponents told the committee the change is intended to make explicit that, if the bill uses the phrase “behavioral health” in a definition of health‑care services, the statute should still be read to include mental‑health conditions and substance‑use disorders so providers or payers could not argue services were excluded because the single term appeared in the text. Several members said they personally find the term stigmatizing and that the amendment is a compromise that preserves options for payment parity and integrated care while documenting concerns about stigma.

Committee members debated the amendment’s tradeoffs. Some members said the amendment was a practical solution to an interpretive problem when jurisdictions use the term more broadly; others said the committee needs more discussion with Vermont providers and people with lived experience to shape an inclusive definition that does not deter care. One member said she had refused to fill out a “behavioral health” screening form at a primary‑care visit because she found the wording offensive and stigmatizing; another noted payers and other states sometimes use “behavioral health” as an umbrella term that can facilitate integrated billing and parity efforts.

The chair took a straw poll on whether members found the amendment favorable. The transcript records that a straw poll was held but does not provide a clear, final tally in the record provided.

The committee moved on to additional amendments after the discussion; no formal committee vote or final adoption of the amendment is recorded in the transcript provided.","Members debated language added to S27 intended to define \"behavioral health\" so jurisdictions outside the state cannot use a broader interpretation to narrow coverage of mental health and substance‑use services; supporters said the change would close a potential loophole, while others said the term can be stigmatizing and needs more discussion.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Representative North offers amendment to S27 to narrow eligibility, add "good faith" payment requirement for medical‑debt relief

Committee considers amendment to define “behavioral health” in S27 to avoid out‑of‑state interpretation