Existing law, the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, defines and regulates consumer credit reports and consumer credit reporting agencies. Existing law regulates the treatment of medical debt in this regard by, among other things, prohibiting a consumer credit reporting agency from making any consumer credit report containing medical debt information, prohibiting a person who uses a consumer credit report in connection with a credit transaction from using medical debt as a negative factor when making a credit decision, and prohibiting a person from furnishing information regarding a medical debt to a consumer credit reporting agency. Existing law makes a violation of certain provisions related to medical debt by a person holding a license or permit issued by the state to be deemed a violation of the law governing that license or permit.

Existing law, the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, defines and regulates investigative consumer reports and investigative consumer reporting agencies. Existing law prohibits an investigative consumer reporting agency from making or furnishing any investigative consumer report containing specified items of information, including medical debt.

Existing law defines medical debt for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act and the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act as a debt owed by a consumer to a person whose primary business is providing medical services, products, or devices, or to the persons agent or assignee, for the provision of medical services, products, or devices, as specified.

This bill would, instead, define medical debt for these purposes as a debt related to, in whole or in part, a transaction, account, or balance arising from a medical service, product, or device, except as provided. By changing the scope of what is considered medical debt, and because certain violations of the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act are deemed a violation of a licensing statute and the violation of some licensing statutes is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, defines and regulates consumer credit reports and consumer credit reporting agencies. Existing law regulates the treatment of medical debt in this regard by, among other things, prohibiting a consumer credit reporting agency from making any consumer credit report containing medical debt information, prohibiting a person who uses a consumer credit report in connection with a credit transaction from using medical debt as a negative factor when making a credit decision, and prohibiting a person from furnishing information regarding a medical debt to a consumer credit reporting agency. Existing law makes a violation of certain provisions related to medical debt by a person holding a license or permit issued by the state to be deemed a violation of the law governing that license or permit.

Existing law, the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, defines and regulates investigative consumer reports and investigative consumer reporting agencies. Existing law prohibits an investigative consumer reporting agency from making or furnishing any investigative consumer report containing specified items of information, including medical debt.

Existing law defines medical debt for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act and the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act as a debt owed by a consumer to a person whose primary business is providing medical services, products, or devices, or to the persons agent or assignee, for the provision of medical services, products, or devices, as specified.

This bill would, instead, define medical debt for these purposes as a debt related to, in whole or in part, a transaction, account, or balance arising from a medical service, product, or device, except as provided. By changing the scope of what is considered medical debt, and because certain violations of the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act are deemed a violation of a licensing statute and the violation of some licensing statutes is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Date of Hearing: April 23, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND FINANCE

Avelino Valencia, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2746 (

Author:Schiavo) – As Amended Ver:April 16, 2026

SUBJECT: Consumer debt: medical credit cards and medical debt

SUMMARY:

1. This bill prohibits deceptive practice related to medical credit card enrollment by requiring clear disclosures to specify that the product is a credit card and not a payment plan, as well as disclosure of the annual percentage rate. 
2. This bill expands medical debt to include debt incurred on a credit card offered specifically for the payment of medical services, products, or devices, or if the credit card allows deferred interest purchases of a medical service, product or device. 
3. Prohibit reporting of information from a medical credit card for purchases made at specified locations or merchants.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines “medical credit card” as a credit card issued under an open-end or closed-end plan offered specifically for the payment of medical services, products, or devices.
2. Requires, before entering a contract for a medical credit card with an individual, all of the following:
   1. Clear and conspicuous disclosure that the credit card is not a payment plan;
   2. Clear and conspicuous disclosure of the annual percentage rate applicable; and
   3. Express written consent to the terms, including the acknowledgement of the disclosures, by the individual to be bound.
3. Defines “medical debt” as related to, in whole or in part, a transaction, account, or balance arising from a medical service, product, or device.
   1. Excludes the following:
      1. A loan secured by real property.
      2. Debt charged to a general purpose line of credit.
      3. A general purpose unsecured installment loan.
      4. Debt charged to a credit card unless either of the following applies:
         1. The credit card is issued under an open-end or closed-end plan offered specifically for the payment of medical services, products, or devices.
         2. The credit card allows for deferred interest purchases of a medical service, product, or device.
4. Prohibits a consumer credit reporting agency from reporting debt from purchase originated from the following:
   1. An acute psychiatric hospital.
   2. A general acute care hospital.
   3. A special hospital.
   4. A pharmacy.
   5. A provider.

EXISTING LAW:

California

1. Defines “medical debt” to mean a debt owed by a consumer to a person whose primary business is providing medical services, products, or devices, or to the person’s agent or assignee, for the provision of medical services, products, or devices. Medical debt includes, but is not limited to, medical bills that are not past due or that have been paid. Civil Code (Civ.Code) § 1785.3(j)(1).
   1. “Medical service, product, or device” does not include cosmetic surgery, as defined in Section 1367.63 of the Health and Safety Code. Civ.Code § 1785.3(j)(2).
2. Prohibits a person from furnishing information regarding a medical debt to a consumer credit reporting agency. Civ. Code § 1785.27(a).
3. Voids and makes unenforceable a medical debt that has been furnished to a CRA in knowing violation of the law. Civ. Code § 1785.27(b).
4. Makes it unlawful to enter into a written contract creating a medical debt that does not include the following term:
   1. “A holder of this medical debt contract is prohibited by Section 1785.27 of the Civil Code from furnishing any information related to this debt to a consumer credit reporting agency. In addition to any other penalties allowed by law, if a person knowingly violates that section by furnishing information regarding this debt to a consumer credit reporting agency, the debt shall be void and unenforceable.” Civ. Code § 1785.27(c)(1).
   2. A written contract entered into on or after July 1, 2025, that does not include the term described in paragraph (1) is void and unenforceable. Civ. Code § 1785.27(c)(2).
5. Deems a violation of Civil Code Section 1785.27 (Medical Debt Credit Reporting) a violation of the law governing the license or permit of the person holding a license or permit issued by the state. Civ. Code § 1785.27(d).

Federal

1. Prohibits the reporting of specified time barred information and contact information of a medical information furnisher unless the furnisher’s information is obscured by code or the report is provided for the purpose of engaging insurance other than property and casualty. 15 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 1681(c)(a).
2. Defines “medical information” 
   1. To mean information or data, whether oral or recorded, in any form or medium, created by or derived from a health care provider or the consumer, that relates to:
      1. the past, present, or future physical, mental, or behavioral health or condition of an individual;
      2. the provision of health care to an individual; or
      3. the payment for the provision of health care to an individual.
   2. Does not include the age or gender of a consumer, demographic information about the consumer, including a consumer’s residence address or e-mail address, or any other information about a consumer that does not relate to the physical, mental, or behavioral health or condition of a consumer, including the existence or value of any insurance policy. 15 U.S.C. section 1681a(i)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed Fiscal by Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose

Statement from the Author

“The looming health insurance crisis will eliminate coverage for millions of Californians and push many into having to pay out of pocket. Medical credit cards offer a way for individuals to pay for unpredictable and important care on the spot. Medical debt is not an accurate predictor of one’s ability to pay credit obligations compared to other types of debt because consumers have limited or no choice in the nature and timing of medical services they require to support their health, which is why California law prohibits the reporting of medical debt to credit agencies.

Unfortunately, state law does not include medical credit card debt within the definition of medical debt, opening the door for medical credit card companies to unfairly damage the credit score of Californians. By including medical credit card debt under the definition of medical debt, more Californians will have access to favorable financial terms, housing and employment opportunities. At a time when affordability is paramount, safeguarding the financial and medical well-being of our constituents should be our foremost priority.”

Arguments in Support

“As health care becomes more expensive due to rising premiums and insurance gaps, medical loans and credit cards are becoming more prevalent than ever before. Medical loans and credit cards are attractive financing options for medical and dental offices because they receive a lump sum payment immediately rather than waiting for insurance authorization and reimbursement or evaluating whether a patient qualifies for financial assistance. In some cases, medical assistants or receptionists will run a patient’s credit application without their approval or knowledge in order to tell a patient they have been approved for financing.

When medical offices proactively sign-up patients for medical credit card products for services that would otherwise be paid for by insurance or charitable assistance it can have a material effect on their health and well-being. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) warns “[t]he growing promotion and use of medical cards and installment loans can increase the financial burden on patients who may pay more than they otherwise would pay and may compromise medical outcomes.

Medical credit card companies use deferred interest rates, offering zero-interest promotional periods which are typically a year long. If a patient has not paid the full balance on the medical credit card within the promotional period, they are subject to interest charges on the total amount originally taken on, not just the unpaid balance. The average interest rate for a medical credit card is 26.99 percent, but late payments can push interest rates to nearly 40 percent.”-- Submitted as a joint letter from Contra Costa Legal Services, National Consumer Law Center, Western Center on Law and Poverty, Housing and Economic Rights Advocates, Public Law Center, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, Consumer Reports, Legal Assistance for Seniors, California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, Legal Aid Society of San Diego, Center for Responsible Lending, Friends Committee on Legislation of California.

Arguments in Opposition

“The bill is unimplementable without granting financial institutions access to private medical information – lenders do not know what items, products, services are purchased in a transaction and therefore cannot separate out what in the transaction is “medically necessary” or not.

In order to make this proposed expansion of medical debt operational and workable, the financial services industry must know what may be sent to a credit bureau and what may not send to a credit bureau. Without access[,] this information, the financial services industry cannot determine what parts of a transaction is subject to the bill and the bill is therefore unimplementable.

AB 2746 (Schiavo) attempts to sweep third‑party lenders (e.g., credit cards and other third-party lenders captured under the definition) into a broadened legal definition of ‘medical debt.’ That approach would require a historic rollback of medical privacy protections, is unimplementable as a matter of law and system design, and would generate serious conflicts with both California and federal privacy and credit‑reporting frameworks – all reasoning as to why in 2024, SB 1061 (Limon) was amended and signed into law with its current definition of medical debt, rather than the expansive definition to include third party lending.”-- Submitted as a joint letter from The California Bankers Association, the American Financial Services Association, California Chamber of Commerce, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, the Card Coalition, the California Financial Services Association.

1. Background
2. Healthcare (in)affordability

According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), consumers owed $88 billion^[1] in medical debt on consumer credit reports as of June 2021. In 2017, a Census Bureau survey^[2] found that 19% of people reported having medical bills they could not fully repay during the year. Uninsured, Black, and Hispanic Americans are more likely to have medical debt.^[3] When people have difficulties, they often have difficulty paying for basic household expenses such as utilities and food. Because difficulties tend to be grouped, households that experienced one difficulty often had difficulties with other expenses as well.^[4] Two in five households had difficulty with a medical expense.

According to the California Health Care Foundation 2026 Health Policy Survey, half of Californians (51%) reported that their health care expenses have increased faster than their incomes, and a vast majority (71%) are experiencing financial strain due to health care costs. Research shows medical debt has serious downstream consequences, including a 44% higher risk of housing instability, such as difficulty paying rent, eviction, or foreclosure.^[5]

Unlike most consumer debts, the need for medical care for an acute illness can often be unexpected and not discretionary. In March 2022, the three nationwide credit bureaus jointly, and voluntarily announced that paid medical debts, medical debts less than a year old, and medical debt under $500 would no longer be included on consumers' credit reports.

1. Credit and Societal Participation

A consumer report is a collection of information about a person in relation to their current and recent past for the purposes of determining their credit worthiness, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used to determine that person’s eligibility for credit, housing, in some cases, employment, and other permitted means.^[6] There are many different types of consumer reports, the most common being a credit report. A credit score is a numeric representation of a snapshot at any given time of a corresponding credit report. There are many different rating companies that provide credit scoring, with Fair Isaac Co. (FICO) being the most popular and Vantage a close second for consumer scoring. 

Credit reports are regulated under state and federal laws. These laws cover rules around the type of information, dispute resolution requirements, furnisher requirements, and more. (See comment 3) Credit scores are composed of proprietary algorithms developed by the issuing company that utilize the information from the credit report to generate a number that represents a person’s “credit worthiness, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living”. As a result of the reach that consumer reports have, credit reports and credit scores act as societal gatekeepers that determine access to housing employment, financial services and general economic stability. There is also evidence to support a relationship between credit scores and mental health. 

In a study examining credit scores and symptoms of depression and anxiety in adults, findings provide evidence for a relationship between neighborhood credit scores and individual mental health “above and beyond area-level income”, meaning that the credit scores play a greater role in affecting depression and anxiety than one’s income amount.^[7] The study used area-level credit scores for three reasons: 

1. Area-level credit scores may capture neighborhood economic context better than traditional measures like median household income; 
2. Individual credit scores are determined in part by credit history, financial behavior such as bill pay, and total lines of credit available; thus, communities that have had longer access to credit will have higher credit scores; and 
3. Credit scores reflect communal purchasing power, historical access to resources, and systemic inequities, including the impact of structural racism.

The study’s findings were strongest in the relationship between area-level credit scores and mental health for people ages 35-64, which is when access to capital may be more critical than other life stages; these ages are the typical time when people are working, having children, and preparing for the future. The study also found that there appears to be a response relationship between higher area-level credit scores and lower reporting of symptoms of depression or anxiety. Conversely, even after controlling for median household income, lower average area credit scores were consistently associated with a higher prevalence of depression symptoms.

1. Prior and Current Legislation

California has been, and continues to be, a thought-leader in addressing medical affordability. In particular, AB 1020 prohibited hospitals from selling patient debt to debt buyers, unless specified conditions are met, specifically including the inability to charge interest on the debt. SB 639 prohibited medical providers from offering credit cards or loans that include deferred interest. Most recently, SB 1061 prohibits the reporting of non-cosmetic medical debt owed by a consumer to a medical provider or business. And currently, AB 2123 is a bill proposed to establish the Medical Debt Relief Act to eliminate some medical debt of eligible patients through debt cancellation. 

A recent press release from the State Attorney General stated: 

“In California, it is illegal for medical debt to appear on your credit report. Medical debt — which the law generally defines as debt owed to a provider of medical services, products, or devices — is generally unforeseen; it is not a reliable predictor of credit risk and can make it harder for people who are already struggling to secure housing, a job, or a car to get to work," "California banned medical debt from appearing on credit reports because we recognized this practice as harmful to struggling consumers and not helpful in determining creditworthiness. Let me be clear: This remains the law in California. I urge consumers to understand their rights and to regularly check their credit reports to ensure medical debt does not make an appearance. The California Department of Justice is committed to protecting and enforcing all of California's laws — including this one.”^[8]

How Consumer Credit Reporting is Regulated

Consumer credit reporting is regulated at both the federal and state level. The Federal Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) was enacted in 1970 to “ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect consumer privacy.” FCRA establishes how credit reports can be used and establishes limits for what kind of information can be included in a credit report. At the state level, the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), enacted in 1975, regulates credit reporting agencies to ensure the agencies “exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumer’s right to privacy.” FCRA partially preempts California state law. 

The 2018 Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act amended FCRA to create new requirements on CRAs while constraining states' ability to legislate on certain topics covered by federal law. Specifically, FCRA now preempts specific categories of state laws, while those not inconsistent with FCRA generally are not preempted. 

Relevant to this bill, a 2022 interpretive rule issued by the CFPB delineates what is preempted by FCRA and what is not. It specifies that state laws that are not “inconsistent” with the FCRA—including State laws that are more protective of consumers than the FCRA—are generally not preempted. The CFPB guidance authorizes states to pursue legislation on certain topics, such as the inclusion of information in credit reports:

States therefore retain substantial flexibility to pass laws involving consumer reporting to reflect emerging problems affecting their local economies and citizens. For example, if a State law were to forbid consumer reporting agencies from including information about medical debt, evictions, arrest records, or rental arrears in a consumer report (or from including such information for a certain period of time), such a law would generally not be preempted. Likewise, if a state law were to prohibit furnishers from furnishing such information to consumer reporting agencies, such a law would also not generally be preempted.

1. Federal Ruling and Repeal

In January 2022, the No Surprises Act^[9] went into effect to address surprise medical bills—for example, out-of-network emergency bills. After this law went into effect, the CFPB released a bulletin stating that if debt collectors report or try to collect debts barred by the No Surprises Act, they may violate the FCRA or the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Under this rulemaking, the CFPB defined medical information as “ In January 2025, the CFPB finalized a rule that would have removed medical debt from credit reports and prohibited lenders from making credit decisions based on medical debt. The rule was challenged by a lawsuit shortly after it was finalized, and new CFPB leadership asked the court to vacate this finalized rule, which the court did in July 2025.

1. What other states are doing

As of 2025, 15 states have prohibited medical debt reporting in a patchwork of varying degrees and definitions of “medical debt”. With regards to the proposed definition of “medical debt” pertaining to the credit card exemption, categorically, other states’ definitions fall into two buckets “does not include debt charged to a credit card issued under and open- or closed- ended credit card plan, unless the credit card is offered 1) specifically or 2) solely for the purchase of medical or health care service.” 

1. Prior Legislation-SB 1061

Under SB 1061, only medical debt owed directly to the provider of medical services, products, or devices other than cosmetic surgery is not reportable. This definition of medical debt excludes a large source of medical debt, medical credit cards. In reviewing the history of amendments of SB 1061, the bill passed through this committee with the definition of medical debt as: 

1. “Medical debt” means a debt related to, in whole or in part, a transaction, account, or balance arising from a medical service, product, or device.
   1. “Medical debt” does not include any of the following:
      1. Debt charged to a credit card unless the either of the following:
         1. The credit card is issued under an open-end or closed-end plan offered specifically for the payment of medical services, products, or devices, unless that plan devices.
         2. The credit card allows for deferred interest purchases of a medical service, product, or device.
      2. A loan secured by real property unless either of the following:
         1. The lender marketed the loan as being for the purpose of paying for a medical service, product, or device.
         2. At the time the loan was made, the lender had actual knowledge that the borrower intended to use the proceeds of the loan to pay for a medical service, product, or device.

Relevant amendments from this committee were to add to the exclusions of medical debt 1) general purpose credit cards, 2) general purpose installment loans, and 3) real property entirely. All else remained intact. It is evident that it was the original intent of the author to include medical credit cards. At the same time, the CFPB finalized^[10] its now vacated^[11] (terminated) ruling (see Comment 4) which would have created a definition of “medical debt information”. That definition would mean:

 “Medical debt information” is medical information that pertains to a debt a consumer owes to a person whose primary business is providing medical services, products, or devices, which also includes debt owed to a health care provider’s agent or assignee for the provision of such medical services, products, or devices. And medical debt information does not include debts incurred with third party creditors in order to pay for medical care.

Opposition cites bring parity with the federal ruling as the reason for amendments were taken in Assembly Appropriations to SB 1061, however this has not, and cannot be verified. It is also important to note that there is no requirement for “medically necessary” either in the defunct federal definition or the current state definition for services, products or devices to be considered medical debt. The only qualifier from medical debt is cosmetic surgery, and debt arising from reconstructive or prosthetic surgery that was deemed necessary by a physician is considered medical debt. Civ.Code section 1785.3(j)(2(B) and (C).

7) What this bill does-Medical Definition

No conflict with a federal definition

This bill restores the definition of “medical debt” to the definition with which SB 1061 left this committee. The recent CFPB rulemaking, including its more limited definition of medical debt information, has been vacated by a federal court. Thus, the inclusion of medical credit credit cards is no longer in direct conflict with the federal definition, although there was no risk of preemption given the state’s rights to enact more protective language. This bill would modify the definition of “medical debt” to include credit card debt if 1) the credit card is issued under an open-end or closed-end plan offered specifically for the payment of medical services, products, or devices, or 2) the credit card allows for deferred interest purchases of a medical service, product, or device. As of the time of this writing, no other state has defined medical debt in relation to medical credit cards in terms of deferred interest. 

What are medical credit cards

Medical credit cards are specialized credit cards designed or marketed to cover the costs of medical services or procedures, including preventive and emergency care. These cards, which include Synchony’s Care Credit and Comenity’s Alphaeon Credit Card, sometimes restrict charges to providers in their network and often include “deferred interest” promotions that allow zero or low interest for a set period of time. The use of medical credit cards has grown significantly in recent years: Between 2013 and 2023, the number of CareCredit cardholders increased from 4.4 million to 11.7 million.^[12] 

However, some medical credit cards allow a user to purchase non-medical items from an approved provider. For example, Walgreens Pharmacy is an approved provider for CareCredit, so a consumer with a CareCredit card can use the card to purchase a prescription medication and other non-medical items available at Walgreens. Depending on the card, CareCredit cannot distinguish between medical and non-medical items within a transaction and may not know which transactions would be considered medical debt, complicating implementation of this bill. Even if the transaction were to be taken separately, if the CareCredit card is a network card only, it does not operate on an open loop system which allows for merchant and purchase coding.^[13] 

i) Closed loop v. Open loop

CareCredit offers two types of medical credit cards, one is a network card, and the other is a rewards card which operates on the Mastercard network. The first is a closed loop credit card, meaning that it is only valid at the specific merchant(s) or retailer(s), similar to American Express as opposed to the second, for example, Visa/Mastercard. In a closed loop system, there is no need for a processor (Visa/Mastercard), the entities involved are the merchant and the bank (card issuer). As such, statements provided to the card issuer are not itemized or coded in a distinguishable manner making it impossible to differentiate between medical and non-medical purchases. According to CareCredit, it is only able to see the name, date, merchant ID, and amount due. 

For open loop credit cards, in the context of this bill, various items are coded based with four-digit numbers used by card issuers to identify health-related merchants, typically ensuring transactions are for eligible medical services or products. Additionally, for open loop cards, purchases at a retailer that sells both medical and non-medical items can be identified with an Inventory Information Approval System (IIAS), which is a system that will either approve or deny certain items that are purchased, based on their IRS eligibility for health or flexible spending accounts.

The author has begun amendments to address these complications by specifying from which providers of medical services, devices, or products must be excluded from consumer credit reporting by adding acute psychiatric hospitals, general acute care hospitals, special hospitals, pharmacies, and medical providers. This specification should address the issue for both closed and open loop medical credit cards. However, this list is not complete. Many physicians are not actually included in the referenced Health and Safety Code Section. The author may wish to consider referring to the Healing Arts in the Business and Professions Code and excluding inapplicable licensees, as a large number of medical providers are covered in that section.

8) What this bill does-Disclosures

This bill prohibits deceptive practice related to medical credit card enrollment by requiring clear disclosures to specify that the product is a credit card and not a payment plan,  as well as disclosure of the annual percentage rate. Many medical credit cards offer deferred interest, or springing interest, terms for a time period of between six and eighteen months. If someone has a remaining balance after the designated promotional period, they are charged all the interest that would have accrued as of their original purchase date in a balloon payment. If the consumer cannot pay the full balance, which contains the accrued interest and any remaining principal, that balance carries over each month and accrues interest until it is paid. The consumer is then paying interest on top of interest. These products are typically more expensive than other forms of payment due to the higher interest payments. 

According to the CFPB, consumers paid $1 billion in deferred interest payments for healthcare charges from 2018-2020. Consumers used cards or loans with deferred interest terms to pay for almost $23 billion in healthcare expenses, and over 17 million medical purchases, from 2018 to 2020. CFPB analysis indicates that, between 2015 and 2020, people incurred interest on 20% of their healthcare purchases when using deferred interest cards or loans. People with credit scores below 619 incurred interest more frequently, for about 34% of their healthcare purchases. In part, people with lower credit scores may have been more likely to incur interest because they were more likely to have shorter periods before they were charged deferred interest.^[14] 

As recently as April 17, 2026, the State Attorney General issued a consumer alert warning Californians about deferred-interest medical credit cards. After describing the issue when a payment is missed or a balance remains, the AG noted “These cards are not the only financing option available, and consumers should carefully consider alternatives before signing up.”

The opposition argues that deferred interest gives the consumer the ability to pay for expensive medical debt over time with no interest, whereas with a credit card, they are guaranteed to pay interest. And if the consumer were to lose the benefit of the 0% interest period, the interest due is the interest that they would have had to pay with a credit card anyway. 

This is partially correct, however it is based on an incomplete premise. First, consumers often believe that they are agreeing to a payment plan with their provider, not signing up for a credit card. Knowledge of this fact could allow the patient to shop for better financing, such as a 0% APR credit card. The author’s amendments should address this issue. 

Second, unlike the 0% interest offers on most credit cards, the promotional period on medical credit cards is deferred interest. For many people who do not often apply for credit or spend much of their time perusing the annals of consumer finance products, it can be easy to see how 0% APR can be conflated with 0% APR if paid within x time. The author’s second disclosure amendment seeks to address this issue but it may not be complete. The author may wish to consider “requiring clear and conspicuous disclosure that the promotional offer benefits are only valid if paid in full during the promotional period, otherwise interest on the original amount in addition to any remaining balance will be due at the end of the promotion period. And required the disclosure of the APR thereafter.” 

And third, the accumulation of the interest is the most significant difference between a deferred interest card and if the consumer used a credit card instead; with a credit card, the interest is paid over time, but with deferred interest, there is a balloon payment for interest on the original amount of the debt all at once which is more likely to incur more interest and take longer for the consumer to repay.

Note, in a piece about medical credit cards in November 2025, the vice president for communications at Synchrony Financial, the parent of CareCredit, told NerdWallet in an email that 87% of people who qualify for special financing choose the deferred interest option. They added, "It is important to note that the vast majority of cardholders who select the deferred interest option completely pay off the promotion prior to its expiration, thus paying no interest."^[15]

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Last verified 4/19/26

AARP

Blood Cancer United, Formerly the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society

California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform

California Low-income Consumer Coalition

California Pan - Ethnic Health Network

California State Council of Service Employees International Union (seiu California)

Calpirg, California Public Interest Research Group

Center for Responsible Lending

Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations (CCWRO)

Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto

Consumer Action

Consumer Federation of California

Consumer Reports

Contra Costa Senior Legal Services

End Child Poverty CA

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Health Access California

Housing and Economic Rights Advocates (HERA)

Indivisible CA Statestrong

Latino Coalition for a Healthy California

Legal Aid Society of San Diego

Legal Assistance for Seniors

National Consumer Law Center

Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County

Oakland Privacy

Privacy Defense Alliance

Public Counsel

Public Law Center

Small Business Majority

Western Center on Law & Poverty

Opposition

Oppose Last verified 4/19/26

A+ Dental Care

Academy of Doctors of Audiology

American Academy of Dermatology

American Academy of Sleep Medicine

American Financial Services Association

American Massage Therapy Association; the

American Society of Plastic Surgeons

Association of Dental Support Organizations

Bright Now! Dental

California Academy of General Dentistry

California Association of Collectors

California Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

California Association of Orthodontists

California Bankers Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Chiropractic Association

California Credit Union League

California Creditors Bar Association

California Dental Association

California Financial Services Association

California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery

California Society of Plastic Surgeons

Card Coalition

Consumer Data Industry Association

Electronic Transactions Association

Encore Capital Group

National Creditors Bar Association

Newport Dental

Pra Group

Revenue Management Association International

Silicon Valley Leadership Group

Smile Brands

The Aesthetic Society

Analysis Prepared by: Desiree NguyenOrth / B. & F. / (916) 319-3081

1. “Medical Debt Burden in the United States” CFPB (February 2022). The study notes the total amount of medical debt in collections in the U.S. is likely higher, since not all medical debts in collections are furnished to consumer reporting companies. ↑

2. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/who-had-medical-debt-in-united-states.html ↑

3. Medical Debt Burden in the United States” CFPB (February 2022) ↑

4.  Fulford   S, Rush   M. (2024, “Insights from the Making Ends Meet Survey.” CFPB Research Brief 2024-5. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 2024, pp 18. Accessed 4/15/26/ ↑

5.  “Medical Debt Associated with Subsequent Difficulty Paying Rent or Mortgage”, Johns Hopkins, Bloomberg School of Public Health (2026, January 13) ↑

6. 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(d)(1). ↑

7.  Ettman, C., et al. “Area-Level Credit Scores and Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety in Adults.” American Journal of Epidemiology (2024, August,19) 194,5 pp1208-1220. doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae275 ↑

8. https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/california-it-remains-illegal-medical-debt-appear-credit-reports-attorney#:~:text=California%27s%20Law,debt%20appearing%20on%20credit%20reports Last visited 4/18/26. ↑

9. H.R.133 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. ↑

10. Notice of Final Rulemaking, 12 C.F.R. 1022  CFPB https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_med-debt-final-rule_2025-01.pdf Last visited 4/18/26. ↑

11.  Final judgment: On July 11, 2025, the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Texas vacated the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s rule, Prohibition on Creditors and Consumer Reporting Agencies Concerning Medical Information (Regulation V) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.235173/gov.uscourts.txed.235173.53.0.pdf ↑

12. “Medical Credit Cards and Financing Plans.” CFPB (May 2023) ↑

13. Open loop systems are how EBT cards can only be used on certain items and at certain locations, the merchant code and purchase codes can be specified. Similarly, medical reimbursement for FSA qualified purchases are coded specifically for automatic deductions. ↑

14. “Medical Credit Cards and Financing Plans.” CFPB (May 2023) ↑

15. https://www.nerdwallet.com/credit-cards/learn/medical-credit-card. Last visited 4/18/26 ↑

Date of Hearing: April 14, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

Mia Bonta, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2746

Author:(Schiavo) – As Introduced Ver:February 20, 2026

SUBJECT: Consumer debt: medical debt.

SUMMARY: Redefines medical debt for purposes of existing law that prohibits consumer and investigative credit reporting agencies (CRAs) from reporting medical debt, and others from relying on medical debt in making credit determinations. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines “medical debt” as debt related to, in whole or part, a transaction, account, or balance arising from a medical service, product, or device.
2. Clarifies that medical debt does not include any of the following:
   1. Debt charged to a credit card, unless either of the following applies:
      1. The credit card is issued under an open-end or closed-end plan offered specifically for the payment of medical services, products, or devices; or,
      2. The credit card allows for deferred interest purchases of a medical service, product, or device.
   2. A loan secured by real property;
   3. Debt charged to a general-purpose line of credit; or,
   4. A general purpose unsecured installment loan.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines “medical debt” as debt owed by a consumer to a person whose primary business is providing medical services, products, or devices, or to the person’s agent or assignee, for the provisions of medical services, products, or devices. Includes medical bills that are not past due or that have been paid. [Civil Code (CIV) § 1785.3]
2. Exempts cosmetic surgery from the definition of “medical service, product, or device.” Includes the following in the definition of “medical service, product, or device”:
   1. Any service, drug, medication, product, or device sold, offered, or provided to a patient by licensed people or facilities, as specified;
   2. Initial or subsequent reconstructive surgeries, as defined, and follow-up care deemed necessary by the attending physician and surgeon;
   3. Initial or subsequent prosthetic devices, as defined, and follow-up care deemed necessary by the attending physician and surgeon; and,
   4. A mastectomy, as defined. [Ibid.]
3. Prohibits a consumer CRA from making any consumer credit report containing medical debt. [CIV § 1785.13]
4. Prohibits an investigative CRA from making or furnishing any investigative consumer report containing medical debt. [CIV § 1786.18]
5. Prohibits a person who uses a consumer credit report in connection with a credit transaction from using medical debt listed on the report as a negative factor when making a credit decision. [CIV § 1785.20.6]
6. Prohibits the furnishing of information regarding medical debt to a CRA. Determines that medical debt is void and unenforceable if a person knowingly furnishes information regarding medical debt to a CRA. [CIV § 1785.27]
7. Prohibits, on or after July 1, 2025, a contract creating a medical debt that does not include the following term. Determines that a contract that does not include the term below is void and unenforceable.

“A holder of this medical debt contract is prohibited by Section 1785.27 of the Civil Code from furnishing any information related to this debt to a consumer credit reporting agency. In addition to any other penalties allowed by law, if a person knowingly violates that section by furnishing information regarding this debt to a consumer credit reporting agency, the debt shall be void and unenforceable.” [Ibid.]

1. Prohibits a noncontracting ground ambulance provider, or an entity acting on its behalf, including a debt buyer or assignee of the debt, from reporting adverse information to a consumer CRA or commencing civil action against an individual for a minimum of twelve months after the initial billing regarding amounts owed by the individual. [Health & Safety Code (HSC) § 1371.56 and Insurance Code (INS) § 10126.66]
2. Prohibits a noncontracting individual health professional, or any entity acting on their behalf, including any assignee of the debt, from reporting adverse information to a consumer CRA. [HSC § 1371.9 and INS § 10112.8]
3. Prohibits a hospital, any assignee of the hospital, or other owner of patient debt, including a collection agency or debt buyer, from reporting adverse information to a consumer CRA. [HSC § 127425]

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee.

COMMENTS:

1. PURPOSE OF THIS BILL. According to the author, the looming health insurance crisis, as a result of the passage of H.R. 1, will eliminate coverage for millions of Californians and push many into having to pay out of pocket. The author notes that medical credit cards offer a way for individuals to pay for unpredictable and important care on the spot. The author continues that medical debt is not an accurate predictor of one’s ability to pay credit obligations compared to other types of debt because consumers have limited or no choice in the nature and timing of medical services they require to support their health, which is why California law prohibits the reporting of medical debt to credit agencies. The author argues that unfortunately, state law does not include medical credit card debt within the definition of medical debt, opening the door for medical credit card companies to unfairly damage the credit score of Californians. The author continues that by including medical credit card debt under the definition of medical debt, more Californians will have access to favorable financial terms, housing and employment opportunities. The author concludes that at a time when affordability is paramount, safeguarding the financial and medical well-being of our constituents should be our foremost priority.
2. BACKGROUND. Over the last two decades, significant federal policy changes have reshaped the health insurance landscape in California, expanding coverage, increasing affordability, and strengthening consumer protections for millions of residents. These policies drove historic reductions in the uninsured rate and provided greater stability for families, providers, and health systems across the state. These gains, however, are under threat as the expiration and rollback of key federal supports, combined with broader economic uncertainty and rising health care costs, risk reversing hard-won progress and increasing the number of Californians who are struggling to access affordable health care. According to the California Health Care Foundation 2026 Health Policy Survey (CHCF Survey), half of Californians (51%) reported that their health care expenses have increased faster than their incomes, and a vast majority (71%) are experiencing financial strain due to health care costs. About 6 in 10 Californians overall (59%), and 70% of Californians with low incomes, say they skipped or postponed care due to cost in the past year. Nearly half of Californians (47%) say it is “very” or “somewhat” difficult to afford health care.
   1. Medical Debt. The CHCF Survey found that worries about unexpected medical bills far exceed worries about affording other expenses, including rent and groceries. Four in 10 Californians have medical debt, including 55% of those with low incomes and 37% with higher incomes. The CHCF Survey also notes that medical debt has regional and racial variability. Latino/x Californians (49%) are more likely to report debt than white (37%), Black (35%) or Asian Californians (30%). Half of rural northern California respondents (51%) and nearly half of Inland Empire respondents (47%) reported medical debt. In contrast, about 3 in 10 Bay Area (32%), Sacramento (31%), and San Diego respondents (31%) report any medical debt.

A March 2024 Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) network open article cross-sectional study of 2,943 United States counties, including in California, found that a higher share of the population with medical debt was associated with more days of poor physical and mental health, more years of life lost, and higher mortality rates. According to a 2023 Urban Institute Issue Brief, “Most Adults with Past-due Medical Debt Owe Money to Hospitals,” hospital debt makes up over 70% of medical debt, and hospital bills are generally much larger than other types of medical bills.

• 1. Medical Credit Cards. A May 2023 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) report describes how financial institutions are generating a growing number of financing mechanisms for families and individuals struggling to pay their out-of-pocket healthcare expenses. The report provides an overview of medical credit cards and loans used for services and procedures for basic medical treatment and emergency health care and key findings include:
     1. Medical credit cards and loans used to be restricted to paying for elective procedures. In recent years, these products have been also offered for basic medical treatment and emergency health care and are growing in scope. These products are often offered by a trusted doctor or nurse in doctor’s offices or hospitals when their patients are under significant stress;
     2. Medical financing companies market their products to healthcare providers by touting their products’ cost-saving features and that patients can pay for more expensive medical care that may not be covered by their insurance. However, when these products are offered by medical providers, patients appear not to fully understand the terms of the products and sometimes end up with credit they are unable to afford;
     3. Many medical credit cards offer people deferred interest, or springing interest, terms for a time period of between six and eighteen months. If someone has a remaining balance after the designated promotional period, they are charged all the interest that would have accrued since their original purchase date. These products are typically more expensive than other forms of payment due to the higher interest payments; and,
     4. Patients who should be eligible to receive reduced or free care through a financial assistance program or their insurance plan may instead be signed up for a medical card or loan. Many people would be better off without these products for two reasons:
        1. The financial burden can be higher and their ability to challenge an inaccurate bill is complicated when they are working through a third-party financial institution; and,
        2. The terms of credit for medical credit cards and financing plans can vary greatly in terms of annual percentage rates (APRs), length of the special financing period, and other terms. The APR of the typical medical credit card is 26.99%; currently, the mean APR for all general purpose credit cards is approximately 16%.
  2. Federal, State, and Other Actions. In March 2022, the three nationwide credit bureaus—Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion—jointly announced that paid medical debts, medical debts less than a year old, and medical debt under $500 would no longer be included on consumers' credit reports. In January 2025, the CFPB finalized a rule that would have removed medical debt from credit reports and prohibited lenders from making credit decisions based on medical debt. This rule would have gone beyond industries' voluntary efforts to exclude only certain kinds of medical debt and was set to go into effect March 2025. The rule was challenged by a lawsuit shortly after it was finalized, and new CFPB leadership under the Trump Administration asked the court to vacate this finalized rule, which the court did in July 2025.

Fifteen states, including California, have enacted laws that restrict or ban medical debt credit reporting. SB 1061 (Limón), Chapter 520, Statutes of 2024, prohibits the reporting of medical debt to CRAs. At one point SB 1061 included medical credit cards as defined in this bill, however the language was removed before SB 1061 went to the Governor for signature. While California’s current restriction on medical debt credit reporting does not apply to medical credit cards, 11 other states do. The table on the next page demonstrates the states that restrict medical credit card debt and how they define medical credit cards.

Other State Definitions of Medical Debt for Purposes of Restricting Credit Reporting

1. SUPPORT. The Consumer Federation of California, California Low-Income Consumer Coalition, and CALPIRG are cosponsoring this bill. The cosponsors note that Californians are offered medical credit cards and installment loan products in medical facilities with ties to better care, and in some cases, for treatment that can change the medical outcome of the patient now turned borrower. The cosponsors state that products are often marketed by employees of their medical provider, which adds to consumer confusion and can erode patient trust in their medical providers. The cosponsors continue that the market for these products has grown exponentially. In 2024, the product known as CareCredit had 12 million cardholders with over 270,000 participating providers, an increase of 4.4 million cardholders and 177,000 participating providers compared to ten years prior. The cosponsors cite a CFPB report that found from 2018 to 2020, consumers used these financing options with periods of deferred interest to pay for almost $23 billion in healthcare expenses and a whopping $1 billion in deferred interest. The cosponsors note that research from Harvard Medical School illustrates that damage to credit scores can carry serious health consequences, as researchers found that patients who experienced a two-tier drop in their credit score within a year were 29% more likely to die. For those who saw that drop within six months, the figure rose to 63%. The cosponsors argue that this bill protects Californians’ credit scores from dropping due to medical expenses by prohibiting the reporting of medical credit card debt on consumer credit reports. The cosponsors note that this bill would align California with ten other states who prohibit the reporting or furnishing of credit card debt. The cosponsors conclude that this patient-first bill ensures that health and wellbeing is prioritized during medical visits instead of the interest of medical financial product companies which have no place in rooms where critical medical decisions are to be made.
2. OPPOSITION. A coalition of credit unions, bankers, businesses, credit card companies, and other financial service providers are opposed to this bill. The opposition argues that the approach under this bill would require a historic rollback of medical privacy protections, is unimplementable as a matter of law and system design, and would generate serious conflicts with both California and federal privacy and credit‑reporting frameworks. The opposition continues that third‑party lenders do not have, and cannot obtain, the information needed to comply with an expanded ‘medical debt’ definition. They argue that there are legal barriers to third-party lenders having access to private medical information and that there is no item-level visibility with consumer transactions. The opposition continues that granting third-party lenders access to clinical details would mark a historic shift in medical privacy. The opposition argues that California’s privacy architecture and federal law reflect a decades‑long consensus: medical information stays between patients and health care providers/health care plans and is shared only through narrow, explicit exceptions. The opposition continues that allowing routine, non‑consented clinical disclosures to financial institutions so they can label credit‑card/loan balances as ‘medical’ would invert that structure and expand the universe of entities holding Californians’ most sensitive health data. The opposition notes that lenders and credit card issuers do not want access to Californian’s private medical information, however this is necessary for the bill to work. The opposition continues that to execute this bill as drafted, California and federal law would need significant changes and still leave feasibility gaps. The opposition concludes that California already has a medical debt law signed into law, as do other states who do not have the definition of medical debt as proposed by this bill.
3. RELATED LEGISLATION. AB 2123 (Aguiar-Curry) would establish the medical debt relief program, to be administered by the California Health Facilities Financing Authority (CHFFA) in partnership with the Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI). Would require CHFFA and HCAI to convene a stakeholder advisory group to advise on the development, implementation, and administration of the medical debt relief program. AB 2123 is currently pending review in the Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance.
4. PREVIOUS LEGISLATION. SB 1061 (Limón) prohibits reporting medical debt to CRAs, prohibits those agencies from including it in their reports, and others from relying on medical debt that appears. SB 1061 requires hospitals to maintain specified records and prohibits debt collectors from engaging in certain practices.
5. DOUBLE REFERRAL. This bill is double referred, upon passage of this committee, it will be heard in the Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance.
6. POLICY COMMENT. Most opposition groups argue that this bill is unimplementable and would require numerous changes to state and federal privacy laws in order for third-party entities to comply. This bill would simply add a credit card that “is issued under an open-end or closed-end plan offered specifically for the payment of medical services, products, or devices” and a credit card that “allows for deferred interest purchases of a medical service, product, or device” to existing law that restricts the reporting of medical debt to CRAs in California. As demonstrated in the table above, at least six other states (Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Minnesota, New York, and Oregon) similarly define medical credit cards in their restrictions on medical debt reporting. The main difference in this bill is the inclusion of credit cards that allow for deferred interest purchases for medical services, products, or devices. The opposition claims that the entirety of this bill is unimplementable and violates state and federal privacy laws, however it is questionable if this claim is true when many members of the opposition continue to operate in states that have enacted provisions similar to this bill.

Some representatives of the opposition met with this committee, and claim that the definitions in other states do not encompass their products. The opposition claims that their medical credit cards are not offered “specifically for the payment of medical services, products, or devices” but they do offer deferred interest for such purchases. These opposition groups argue that most medical credit cards are no longer specifically for medical purchases and allow consumers to utilize them for an array of non-medical purchases. While consumers may be able to utilize the cards more broadly, this narrative contradicts with the information presented on their consumer-facing platforms. For example, CareCredit’s website indicates that “CareCredit is a health and wellness credit card with flexible financing options so you can pay over time for care you want or need.” Even though it can be used for other purposes, that reads as marketing the card as specifically for medical services, products, or devices.

Furthermore, consumers are oftentimes enrolled in these cards directly by their providers under the pretense that it is a tool to help them afford necessary care. For example, the Sherman Oaks Hospital in Southern California markets CareCredit directly on their website, stating that “Sherman Oaks Hospital is pleased to announce that we have partnered with CareCredit to offer promotional financing options with the CareCredit credit card to help you get the care you need, when you need it…CareCredit is a health, wellness and personal care credit card that gives you the ability to pay over time with promotional financing options for expenses of $200 or more. Use CareCredit to pay for deductibles, copays and out-of-pocket expenses not covered by insurance.” The marketing practices of the opposition directly conflict with their argument that their products are not specifically for medical purposes. It may be true that they are not solely for those purposes, but this bill and laws in other states are consciously not utilizing the term “solely” given that these cards have expanded their reach.

The Legislature may wish to contemplate whether it is appropriate for patients in dire need to be targeted by these companies, oftentimes through a trusted health care provider, and enrolled in a product that is being marketed to them to cover the services they need to stay alive or healthy but could open them up to debt far beyond that purpose. A consumer coalition support letter notes that they have been informed of cases where medical assistants or receptionists run a patient’s credit application without their approval or knowledge to later inform them that they’ve been approved for financing, even if their services could be covered by insurance or charitable assistance. These sorts of predatory practices are especially concerning given the current context of health care in California – where an estimated 3 million consumers are anticipated to lose insurance coverage, insurance premium rates are doubling for those who still have coverage, and affording health care is the number one concern of Californians across the state.

The opposition also argues that SB 1061 required medical debt to be deemed medically necessary, and they do not have the ability to determine what purchases were medically necessary without violating state and federal medical privacy laws. While they are able to easily determine at which merchant a purchase was made, for example a doctor’s office vs. a Walmart, they cannot determine what individual items were purchased. This committee was not able to identify a medical necessity requirement in SB 1061. SB 1061’s definition of “medical debt,” as detailed in 1) and 2) of existing law above, shows what constitutes a “medical service, product, or device.” This includes “any service, drug, medication, product, or device sold, offered, or provided to a patient by licensed people or facilities,” which does not require medical necessity. That language could be interpreted to encompass anything a provider or facility sells to a patient – which could easily be determined by the merchant information that the opposition states they have access to. The definition further includes follow-up care “deemed necessary” by a provider after reconstructive surgeries and receiving prosthetic devices. However, “deemed necessary” is not the same thing as “medically necessary,” which is more stringently defined in various Health & Safety Code sections, such as the state’s mental health parity laws. A few consumer privacy groups wrote in support of this bill, stating that it “in no way, shape or form reduces privacy protections for medical information.” They argue that these lenders have contracts with certain merchants that aren’t providers of health care, such as retail stores, and that the lenders control which products and product types are allowed to be purchased. Thus, implying that the lenders should be aware that purchases are in fact related to medical care.

The issue then boils down to whether these medical credit cards are contracted to allow consumers to purchase truly non-medical products, like TVs. If they are, then the Legislature may again want to contemplate whether it is ethical for these lenders to target consumers undergoing medical stress into using credit lines that aren’t purely designed to alleviate medical bills.

The negative credit impact from these medical credit cards can lead to denials of housing, favorable loan rates, and in some cases, higher paying jobs. Whether a consumer needs health care is out of their control, and under existing law these lenders are allowed to operate and a consumer may use a medical credit card to pay for their care. At a time when Californians are choosing between health care and basic necessities, the Legislature must consider whether medical credit card debt – just like medical debt covered under existing law – should be allowed to negatively impact their credit.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Low-Income Consumer Coalition (cosponsor)

CalPIRG, California Public Interest Research Group (cosponsor)

Consumer Federation of California (cosponsor)

AARP

Blood Cancer United, Formerly the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society

California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform

California Pan - Ethnic Health Network

California State Council of Service Employees International Union (SEIU California)

Center for Responsible Lending

Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations (CCWRO)

Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto

Consumer Action

Consumer Reports

Contra Costa Senior Legal Services

End Child Poverty CA

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Health Access California

Housing and Economic Rights Advocates (HERA)

Indivisible CA StateStrong

Latino Coalition for a Healthy California

Legal Aid Society of San Diego

Legal Assistance for Seniors

National Consumer Law Center

Privacy Defense Alliance

Public Counsel

Public Law Center

Small Business Majority

Western Center on Law & Poverty

Two individuals

Opposition

A+ Dental Care

Academy of Doctors of Audiology

American Academy of Dermatology

American Academy of Sleep Medicine

American Financial Services Association

American Massage Therapy Association; the

American Society of Plastic Surgeons

Association of Dental Support Organizations

Bright Now! Dental

California Academy of General Dentistry

California Association of Collectors

California Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

California Association of Orthodontists

California Bankers Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Chiropractic Association

California Credit Union League

California Creditors Bar Association

California Financial Services Association

California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery

California Society of Plastic Surgeons

Card Coalition

Consumer Data Industry Association

Electronic Transactions Association

Encore Capital Group

National Creditors Bar Association

Newport Dental

PRA Group

Revenue Management Association International

Silicon Valley Leadership Group

Smile Brands

The Aesthetic Society

Analysis Prepared by: Riana King / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097