Texas judges repeals CFPB's medical debt rule

CFPB logo
Bloomberg News

A Texas judge has vacated the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's medical debt rule and specifically admonished states that have sought to take medical debt off credit reports in a major win for the Trump administration, banks and two trade groups that sued the agency.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Sean D. Jordan, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, dismissed and set aside the CFPB's medical debt rule with prejudice, meaning it cannot be issued again in the future. The CFPB also agreed that it will not issue any similar rule in the future. 

The judge sided with two trade groups — the Consumer Data Industry Association and Cornerstone Credit Union League — who sued the bureau in January claiming the medical debt rule exceeded the bureau's statutory authority and violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 

Under the FCRA, Congress explicitly allowed consumer reporting agencies to include medical debt information in credit reports as long as the information is coded to hide the consumer's underlying health condition, procedures or providers. 

Judge Jordan said the CFPB had premised a portion of the medical debt rule on "an erroneous interpretation" of the FCRA, which restricts how consumer credit information can be accessed and used. However, Congress allowed in the FCRA so-called "permissible purposes," or specific situations where a consumer reporting agency can legally provide a consumer's credit report to a third party for credit transactions, employment, insurance, and certain judicial or government actions.

The judge denied efforts by two nonprofit groups — the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty and legal aid group Tzedek DC — and two individuals, who had petitioned the court for the right to defend the medical debt rule in the absence of support from the CFPB. 

"Defendant-Intervenors suggest that the Bureau — by regulation — may limit such 'permissible purposes' beyond what is specified in FCRA's text. This is a misreading of the statute," Judge Jordan wrote in a 34-page opinion. "The Bureau has no such power to define what in a consumer report is 'permissible.' Congress has defined the permissible purposes of a consumer report, and a creditor has a permissible purpose if it intends to use the report for a credit transaction. And even if state law prohibited that creditor from considering medical-debt information on the report, creditors would still have a permissible purpose for the report as a whole, as they could fairly use the other information to assess creditworthiness."

The ruling sends a clear message to the 14 states that have enacted laws or regulations that either prevent medical debt from being reported to credit bureaus or impose restrictions on the reporting process. Some states have laws requiring hospitals to offer financial assistance before reporting medical debt. 

"Just as an agency cannot prohibit what a federal statute explicitly permits, neither can a state law," the judge wrote. "Accordingly, any state law purporting to prohibit a [credit reporting agency] from furnishing a credit report with coded medical information would be inconsistent with FCRA and therefore preempted."

Former CFPB Director Rohit Chopra promulgated the medical debt rule, which had long been championed by consumer advocates. The rule would have removed an estimated $49 billion in medical debt from the credit reports of roughly 15 million Americans. Notably, consumers would have still owed their medical debt, but the debt wouldn't appear on credit reports and couldn't be used to deny them credit. 

"America's financial system is the best in the world because it is based on a full, fair and accurate credit reporting system," said Dan Smith, president and CEO of the Consumer Data Industry Association. "Lenders would potentially have had an inaccurate and incomplete picture when making lending decisions."

Banks and credit unions objected to the rule because it prohibited lenders from considering medical debts when making lending decisions, and credit bureaus said the rule would have made credit reports less reliable.

"Information about unpaid medical debts is an important element in assessing a consumer's ability to pay," Smith said. "This is the right outcome for protecting the integrity of the system."

For reprint and licensing requests for this article, click here.
Credit reporting Medical billing Regulation and compliance Politics and policy
MORE FROM AMERICAN BANKER