The Medical Debt Relief Act of 2025 amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to prohibit consumer reporting agencies from including adverse information related to medical debt on consumer reports and adds a new statutory definition of “medical debt.” It also directs the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to amend its regulation within one year to bar creditors from obtaining or using medical-debt information when deciding whether to extend credit.
This bill shifts how medical billing affects access to credit: credit files would no longer contain medical collections or charged-off medical balances, and lenders would be forbidden by regulation from using medical-debt information in underwriting. That changes incentives for hospitals, collection firms, credit bureaus, and creditors and will likely trigger operational, compliance, and risk-pricing responses across consumer finance and healthcare billing systems.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a statutory definition of “medical debt” to the FCRA, amends the FCRA’s exclusion list to bar any adverse information related to medical debt from consumer reports, and instructs the CFPB to update 12 CFR 1022.30 to prohibit creditors from obtaining or using medical-debt information in credit decisions within one year of enactment.
Who It Affects
Major credit reporting agencies, furnishers of information (hospitals, providers, collection agencies, debt buyers), banks and other creditors subject to ECOA/CFPB rules, and consumers with medical balances that previously appeared on credit reports. Data brokers and underwriting vendors that synthesize nontraditional data will also be affected.
Why It Matters
Removing medical debt from consumer reports eliminates a long-standing source of negative credit impact tied to healthcare costs and forces lenders to adjust credit risk models or rely on non-medical indicators. The CFPB rulemaking mandate means regulatory detail and enforcement will determine how broadly and quickly the ban reaches industry practices.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new definition of “medical debt” into the FCRA and then uses that definition to categorically exclude any adverse information tied to such debt from consumer reports. That exclusion is not limited to active balances; the statutory language explicitly covers medical debts that were placed for collection, charged off, or subjected to similar actions—i.e., the common forms of derogatory entries that historically have depressed credit scores.
The effect is that nationwide consumer credit files would no longer carry medical collections, and furnisher reporting of those items would be prohibited by the statute.
In parallel, the bill instructs the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to revise a specific CFPB regulation—12 CFR 1022.30—within one year so that creditors are barred from obtaining or using medical-debt information when making credit decisions. Because that regulation sits in the ECOA implementation, the ban targets the underwriting and decision-making side of consumer lending (not just the credit reporting side), and it reaches creditors’ own data-collection practices and vendor relationships for underwriting.The bill makes several technical edits to the FCRA’s existing statutory language to remove prior carve-outs that treated “medical” contact or medical information differently in the statute.
Those drafting changes tighten the statute’s relationship with permissible purposes and practical reporting flows. Notably, the bill does not create a statutory exception for other uses (for example, insurance underwriting) and does not amend collection or debt-collection statutes directly; it focuses on consumer reporting and creditor use for credit decisions.Because the statute and the CFPB mandate operate together, implementation will be a two-part process: credit reporting agencies must stop including medical adverse items in consumer reports under the amended FCRA, and the CFPB must provide a regulatory framework that defines what “obtaining or using” medical-debt information means in practice for creditors.
The bill leaves several operational questions—timing for clearing existing reports, how furnishers should stop sharing data, and whether alternative data sources that proxy medical financial stress are covered—to the CFPB rulemaking and private-sector implementation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds 15 U.S.C. 1681a(bb) to define “medical debt” as any debt arising from receipt of medical services, products, or devices.
It replaces FCRA section 605(a)(6) to categorically prohibit inclusion of any adverse information related to medical debt on a consumer report, explicitly covering debts placed for collection or charged off.
Section 3 requires the CFPB to amend 12 CFR 1022.30 (or successor) within one year of enactment to prohibit creditors from obtaining or using a consumer’s medical-debt information in credit decisions.
The bill makes technical and conforming edits to 15 U.S.C. 1681b(g) (FCRA section 604(g)), removing prior references that treated medical information differently in permissible-purpose language.
The statute does not provide a transition timetable or carve-outs for existing medical entries on consumer files; operational removal and enforcement timing are left to agencies and market actors.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the Act its public name: the “Medical Debt Relief Act of 2025.” This is purely formal, but it frames the bill’s purpose and is the citation used in legal references.
Statutory definition of medical debt
Adds a new subsection to the FCRA that defines medical debt as any debt related in whole or part to transactions, accounts, or balances arising from medical services, products, or devices. The breadth of this definition matters: it is not limited to bills from hospitals but extends to any creditor claim tied to medical care, which will inform what counts as excluded adverse information under the amended reporting rules.
Categorical ban on medical-debt derogatory entries in consumer reports
Strikes the prior paragraph and replaces it with language that forbids any adverse information related to medical debt from appearing on consumer reports, expressly listing collection placement and charge-off as examples. Practically, furnishers and consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) will have to stop reporting those items; CRAs must reconfigure data intake and purge existing medical-derogatory entries unless the agencies craft transitional guidance. Violations would be enforceable under the FCRA’s existing enforcement mechanisms.
Cleanup of permissible-purpose language involving medical information
Removes language in section 604(g) that previously referenced medical contact/information exceptions. Those edits tidy statutory cross-references so the new categorical ban on medical-debt adverse items is not undermined by earlier carve-outs. Operationally, this will affect how CRAs and users interpret permissible purposes tied to medical information, and may require re-documentation of permissible-purpose checks and data flows.
Mandated CFPB rulemaking to bar creditor use of medical-debt information
Directs the Director of the CFPB to amend the specified regulation within one year to ensure creditors cannot obtain or use a consumer’s medical-debt information when deciding whether to extend credit. Because 1022.30 implements ECOA-related prohibitions, the CFPB will determine what constitutes “obtaining or using” (covering direct collection, vendor data sharing, and possibly third-party analytics) and set compliance expectations and enforcement tools for creditors.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Consumers with medical balances: Removing medical-derogatory entries should prevent those balances from depressing credit scores and reduce barriers to credit access for people who have incurred medical bills.
- Prospective borrowers in medical debt hotspots: Individuals in regions or demographic groups with higher rates of medical collections will see a relative reduction in credit-report-driven discrimination when applying for loans or rental housing.
- Advocacy and public-health groups: Organizations that track financial toxicity of care gain a legal lever to argue for de-linking credit consequences from medical hardship, supporting broader efforts to reduce medical financial instability.
Who Bears the Cost
- Credit reporting agencies and furnishers (hospitals, providers, collectors): They must change intake, matching, and dispute processes, remove existing medical-derogatory entries, and update supplier contracts and compliance programs.
- Creditors and lenders: With one risk signal removed, lenders may need to revise underwriting models, increase reserve and pricing assumptions, or invest in alternative credit-scoring tools to capture risk previously signaled by medical collections.
- Debt buyers and collection firms focused on medical receivables: The loss of reporting leverage reduces the collectible value of medical portfolios, likely lowering market prices for medical debt and prompting operational restructuring or legal challenges.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting consumers from credit-market punishment for medical hardship and preserving lenders’ access to information needed to price and allocate credit: eliminating a widely used risk signal helps borrowers with medical debts but shifts risk assessment responsibility to lenders, potentially leading to higher costs of credit, alternative risk-scoring practices that may recreate health proxies, or reduced credit availability.
The bill draws a bright legal line forbidding medical-debt derogatory entries from consumer reports and instructs the CFPB to bar creditor use, but it leaves many implementation details unsettled. The statute gives no explicit timetable or process for purging existing medical entries on consumer files; CRAs and furnishers will need regulatory or enforcement guidance to coordinate removals and dispute-handling.
Similarly, while the CFPB must act within one year, the agency’s rulemaking will determine the scope of “obtaining or using” (for example, whether vendor-supplied analytics that incorporate medical-payment proxies are covered) and set compliance burdens for creditors.
A second set of tensions involves substitution effects. Removing medical debt from credit reports reduces one channel through which medical hardship affects access to credit, but creditors may respond by raising prices, tightening standards, or incorporating other alternative data sources that could indirectly reintroduce signals correlated with health status.
The bill does not change collectors’ ability to pursue payment, nor does it limit data sharing outside the consumer-reporting ecosystem, so medical debts retain economic leverage even if they no longer appear as derogatory trade-lines. Finally, the statutory language is expansive—covering any debt “related to” medical care—leaving open line-drawing questions about mixed-purpose obligations, co-signed debts, and medical-adjacent charges (e.g., transportation or lodging tied to care).
Those ambiguities invite litigation and require careful CFPB rulemaking to avoid unintended loopholes or overbreadth.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.