- Federal agenciesPreserves federal consumer protections against deceptive or unfair medical debt collection practices.
- Targeted stakeholdersMaintains rules likely to reduce erroneous reporting of medical debt to credit bureaus.
- ConsumersProvides continued regulatory clarity for consumers and consumer advocates about collection practices.
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to the withdrawal of the rule relating…
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 167) uses the Congressional Review Act to disapprove a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) rule that withdrew an earlier CFPB rule on deceptive and unfair collection of medical debt (Regulation F).
If enacted, the resolution states the withdrawal rule "shall have no force or effect," effectively preserving the original October 4, 2024 Regulation F provisions addressing deceptive and unfair medical debt collection.
The measure was introduced by Rep.
Narrow and implementable but ideologically charged and lacking compromise; procedural hurdles and potential executive opposition reduce chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution that is clear about its target and effect. Its construction is concise and legally specific, appropriately tailored to the simple procedural-substantive action of nullifying a particular agency rule.
Progressives emphasize consumer protections and harm reduction.
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
- Targeted stakeholdersImposes compliance costs on debt collectors and some healthcare providers required to follow the 2024 rule.
- Targeted stakeholdersMay reduce recoveries from medical debt, potentially lowering industry revenue and collections activity.
- Targeted stakeholdersCould indirectly raise administrative costs that might affect healthcare pricing or service models.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Progressives emphasize consumer protections and harm reduction.
Likely strongly supportive.
The resolution preserves CFPB protections against unfair or deceptive medical debt collection practices and keeps consumer safeguards intact.
Supporters would view this as protecting low-income patients and curbing abusive collection tactics.
Generally favorable but cautious.
Sees value in consumer protections and regulatory certainty, while worrying about compliance costs for small providers and potential unintended consequences.
Would favor narrowly tailored language or implementation guidance to reduce burdens.
Likely opposed.
Views the resolution as re-imposing federal regulation that burdens medical providers and debt collectors.
Prefers the CFPB withdrawal to reduce regulatory burden and protect market flexibility.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow and implementable but ideologically charged and lacking compromise; procedural hurdles and potential executive opposition reduce chances.
- Whether the President would sign or veto a disapproval resolution
- Level of floor support in each chamber for this specific CRA action
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
Progressives emphasize consumer protections and harm reduction.
Narrow and implementable but ideologically charged and lacking compromise; procedural hurdles and potential executive opposition reduce cha…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution that is clear about its target and effect. Its construction is concise and legally specific, ap…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.