To amend sections 1343.01, 1343.03, 1349.01, 2716.02, 2716.03, and 4712.01 and to enact section 1349.54 of the Revised Code to limit the rate of interest on medical debt, to prohibit reporting medical debt to a consumer reporting agency, and to name this act the Ohio Medical Debt Fairness Act.
HB257, titled the Ohio Medical Debt Fairness Act, would create a set of protections for consumers with medical debt. The bill caps interest on medical debt incurred on or after the effective date at 3% per year, both for ordinary debt instruments and for judgments, decrees, or orders involving medical debt. It also creates a new section of law defining “medical debt” and “incur,” and it bars health care providers, collection agencies, and consumer reporting agencies from reporting qualifying medical debt to credit bureaus.
The bill further restricts wage garnishment for medical debt by prohibiting garnishment proceedings to collect medical debt incurred on or after the effective date. If a provider or collection agency violates the reporting ban, a consumer may sue, and a court must void the reported debt or portion of debt and bar further collection from the consumer or third-party payer. The bill also makes conforming changes to existing debt-collection and credit-services statutes, including provisions governing garnishment notices, debt scheduling, and the definition of credit services organizations.
HB257 would significantly alter Ohio’s debt-collection and credit-reporting laws as they apply to medical obligations. It would amend multiple Revised Code sections to carve medical debt out of the general interest-rate and collection framework, impose a 3% interest cap, prohibit credit reporting of medical debt, and eliminate garnishment as a collection tool for covered medical debt incurred after the effective date. It would also add enforcement mechanisms through private civil actions and mandatory judicial remedies, while making technical conforming changes to related consumer finance statutes.
Based on the bill’s title, cosponsorship, and lack of recorded opposition in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears supportive of consumer relief from medical debt burdens. The bill has a broad set of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, suggesting at least initial bipartisan interest in limiting the financial consequences of medical bills. No committee testimony or votes were provided, so there is no recorded debate in the supplied materials to indicate formal support or opposition beyond the bill’s introduction.
The main policy contention likely centers on balancing consumer protection against creditor and provider recovery rights. Supporters would view the bill as preventing medical bills from compounding through high interest, credit damage, and wage garnishment, while opponents may argue it reduces repayment incentives and shifts costs to providers, collection agencies, insurers, or other payers. Another possible point of concern is the bill’s broad prohibition on reporting medical debt and its remedy that voids the reported debt after a violation, which could be seen as especially strong enforcement compared with ordinary debt-collection rules.