Public testimony urges ban on medical debt reporting as committee begins first hearing on SB 605

The Senate Committee on Labor and Business opened a first public hearing on Jan. 30 for Senate Bill 605, a measure that would prohibit medical service providers from reporting the amount or existence of medical debt to consumer reporting agencies and would prohibit consumer reporting agencies from including in consumer reports items they know or should know are medical debt.

Sponsors Senator Winsve Campos (Senate District 18) and Representative Nathan Sosa (House District 30) urged the committee to support SB 605 as an economic-justice measure. Senator Campos testified that removing medical debt from credit reports would help Oregonians access affordable credit, housing and employment; she said medical debt disproportionately affects Black, Latine and Indigenous households and recounted a personal example of receiving an unexpected medical bill. Representative Sosa said the bill does not absolve debt but shields consumers from having emergency medical expenses "destroy someone's credit and derail their financial future." Both sponsors urged the committee to advance the bill.

A broad array of advocates testified in support, citing stories and survey data:

- Andrea Sanchez, Oregon advocacy leader for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, described patients facing monthly costs and said some consider delaying or stopping treatment because of expense. - Andrea Meyer, director of government relations for AARP Oregon, cited a 2022 KFF survey showing 22% of adults 65 and older have medical debt and noted the problem persists for older adults despite Medicare coverage gaps. - Bridget Budbill of the Oregon Law Center said medical debt was the top consumer-protection issue identified by the center's 2024 client survey and emphasized that the bill would not eliminate the obligation to pay but would remove credit-reporting consequences that harm housing and employment prospects.

Consumer and legal-industry witnesses raised concerns or offered technical amendments:

- David Reed, general counsel for the Receivables Management Association International (RMAI), opposed the bill "solely because of the definition of medical debt used in the bill," and asked the committee to adopt the Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's definition (recently adopted by California) to avoid pulling other credit products into the definition; RMAI said it would withdraw opposition if the definition were amended. - Chris Quigley of the Consumer Data Industry Association argued federal preemption under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) limits state regulation of consumer reporting content and said the CFPB lacks authority to dictate credit-report content; CDIA said it has filed suit on related matters. - The Hospital Association of Oregon said it was still assessing the bill's operational impact on hospitals, including interactions with Oregon Health Plan and existing financial-assistance laws, and said it opposed SB 605 as introduced. - The Oregon Liability Reform Coalition highlighted liability and statutory-remedy provisions in the bill that could expand litigation exposure and urged education and regulatory options before creating new private-rights-of-action.

Witnesses including Toni (Toni) Burton and other individuals recounted personal experiences with medical bills and collection actions; one witness described court judgments and garnishment after an episode of psychiatric care, and another described catastrophic cancer-treatment costs.

Committee staff and several members noted the ongoing federal rulemaking process at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The committee recorded that the CFPB issued a final rule in early January 2025 amending Regulation V (the implementing regulation for the FCRA) that generally prohibits consumer reporting agencies from providing creditors with medical-debt information that the creditor is prohibited from using. Several senators requested further legal and technical analysis about how a state prohibition would interact with federal law and other states' approaches (California and others) and about how the bill treats medical credit products and elective procedures.

The committee kept the record open for written testimony (48 hours following the committee start time) and indicated further discussion will follow. No formal committee vote on SB 605 was recorded on Jan. 30.

What the bill would do (as presented by sponsors)

- Prohibit medical service providers from reporting the amount or existence of medical debt to consumer reporting agencies. - Prohibit consumer reporting agencies from including items in a consumer report that the agency knows or should know are medical debt.

Matters for follow-up

Committee members requested additional legal analysis on federal preemption and the CFPB final rule, clarification on the bill's definition of medical debt (especially medical credit cards and elective procedures), and an assessment of hospital and provider operational impacts, including possible unintended effects on access to credit for patients who rely on medical credit products.