On January 7, 2025, the CFPB announced the finalization of a rule amending Regulation V, which implements the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., to prohibit the inclusion of medical bills on credit reports used by lenders and prevent lenders from using medical information in lending decisions. According to the Bureau, the final rule (previously discussed here) will remove an estimated $49 billion in medical bills from the credit reports of about 15 million Americans.
The Bureau noted that medical debts are not effective predictors of whether a borrower will repay a debt. Consumers frequently report that they receive inaccurate bills or are asked to pay bills that should have been covered by insurance. The CFPB estimates that this rule will result in the approval of approximately 22,000 additional mortgages each year and increase credit scores for those with medical debt by an average of 20 points.
This rule follows changes by three nationwide credit reporting companies and two major credit scoring companies to reduce the impact of medical debt on credit reports and scores. Specifically, the final rule will:
- Prohibit lenders from considering medical information. The rule will amend Regulation V and prohibit creditors from using certain medical information and data when making lending decisions, including information about medical devices that could be used as collateral for a loan.
- Ban medical bills on credit reports. The rule prohibits consumer reporting agencies from including medical debt information on credit reports and credit scores sent to lenders. The Bureau seeks to prevent debt collectors from using the credit reporting system to pressure consumers to pay medical bills, regardless of their accuracy.
The rule is effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Putting It Into Practice: The final rule is another example of the CFPB’s increased focus on regulating the credit reporting industry. (previously discussed here). However, immediately after the Bureau finalized the rule, it was hit with two separate lawsuits by trade associations challenging the rule. We will continue to monitor the cases for any developments.
