Witness Testimony
Ms. Melissa Jacoby
Associate Professor University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
A Review of Hospital Billing and Collection Practices
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
June 24, 2004
1:30 PM
United
States House of Representatives
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations
Hearing on "A Review of Hospital Billing and Collection Practices"
June 24, 2004
Statement of
Prof. Melissa B. Jacoby
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this
important hearing.I approach this
issue from the perspective of a law professor who studies and teaches
bankruptcy, contracts, and related subjects.While as a member of the Temple University faculty in Philadelphia, and
now as I join the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, I
have been studying the impact of indebtedness and debt collection on individuals
and families with illness or injury.
In the current health care environment, patients
often are debtors of their medical providers.Characterizing medical providers as creditors means little independently;
the law gives creditors a set of tools to coax or require their debtors to
repay,
but does not require that creditors use them.Creditors generally exercise their discretion in using, or refraining
from using, their debt collection toolbox depending on the circumstances.Thus, for example, credit unions on the whole take a different approach
to debt collection than retailers.
A confluence of circumstances makes the hospital
billing and collection situation particularly troubling.Hospitals have zealously used their debt collection toolbox even against
patients who did not expect this liability (at all, or of this magnitude), are
of modest means,
and may be suffering income loss alongside their illness or injury.Hospitals engage in debt collection activities amidst allegations that
these practices conflict with their missions, and despite arguments that they
already receive significant governmental support to subsidize their care of
modest income patients.To the
extent that hospitals pursue collection before dispositively determining charity
care eligibility,
some patients subject to collection for undiscounted bills never should have
been considered debtors in the first place.
The patient-hospital debtor-creditor relationship is
different from many others in its origin.If
a consumer does not like the terms a store offers for the purchase of a
television, we expect that the consumer should be able to walk away.As one court put it, however, when a loved one legitimately needs medical
care, "the option of walking away from the deal [is] simply unrealistic."Patients or family members often seek hospital care and sign various
hospital documents and agreements under trying circumstances.These documents -- frequently the basis of the hospital's creditor
status
-- may require that the patient or loved one promise to pay the full-charge
rate, and sometimes have required payment of attorneys' fees, costs, interest,
or even penalties, if the bill goes to collection.
Hospital decision-makers may believe there is little
harm in charging full price and trying to collect before writing off these
accounts as bad debt.Hospitals
also may be responding to incentives built into the complex regulatory
environment; even if current law and regulations do not expressly preclude
discounts and more lenient collection practices, it likely is easier to ensure
compliance with the regulatory scheme by imposing full charges and engaging in
assertive collection.
Given this situation, it is important to set the
record straight: hospital billing and collection practices can adversely affect
patients and their families whether or not those practices produce payment or
ultimately are written off as bad debt.
1. Hospital collection activity has credit report implications
Medical bill collection activity hurts patients'
credit rating whether or not the activity produces payment for the hospital.In the words of Federal Reserve researchers, "[p]erhaps the most
important factors considered in credit evaluation are a consumer's history of
repaying loans and any evidence of money-related public actions or
non-credit-related collections."These researchers estimated that medical bills accounted for nearly one
fifth (18.2%) of court judgments recorded on credit reports, and more than half
(52.2%) of collection agency actions reported to credit bureaus, many for rather
small amounts of money.When a collection agency action, lawsuit, judgment, and lien all are
listed on a patient's credit report, the adverse effects of one default not
only multiply, but linger.
As suggested above, the credit report and credit
score are key determinants of whether a patient will receive credit and, if so,
what the terms will be.In addition, the Fair Credit Reporting Act permits credit reports to be
used for a variety of other purposes, such as employment-related inquiries.Thus, one expensive trip to a hospital, followed by zealous collection
and reporting, can bring about a host of unexpected negative effects.
2. Large medical debts and collection activity contribute to bankruptcy
Bankruptcy researchers have discovered that almost
half of personal bankruptcy filers have significant medical debts and/or say
that illness or injury was a reason for their bankruptcies.A variety of studies find between one third to more than half of
bankruptcy filers owed debts directly to medical providers at the time of
filing,
and these understate the problem because they do not include medical bills
charged to credit cards or rolled into home mortgage loans.Bankruptcy filers sixty-five or
older had the highest rate of reporting that illness or injury was a reason
for filing bankruptcy.
Even insured patients may see their credit ruined
through medical-related bankruptcy.The majority of those in medical-related bankruptcy say they have some
insurance at the time of filing.Among married joint bankruptcy filers who were insured at the time of
their bankruptcy filings, almost 40% reported owing debt to a provider of
medical services or supplies.
In addition to financial costs, patients suffer
health-related costs from hospital bills.The first relates to the health impact of stress.Some researchers are concerned specifically about the negative impact of
indebtedness and related financial trouble on certain diseases or conditions.
Owing a significant debt can be stressful on its own. The stress is exacerbated, however, by a zealously pursued debt
collection process.While still in
a hospital bed, a patient may receive a visit from a hospital representative to
discuss payment.Once home, the patient may start to receive letters and phone calls
proposing ways of taking care of the bill.The calls will get pressing when the first debt collector takes over,
and get even more assertive if the hospital enlists the services of a secondary
debt collector. Debt collectors will threaten to report the patient's delinquency to
credit bureaus and/or threaten to file a lawsuit.If they follow through on the latter,
the litigation process itself can be intimidating.Although liability is determined quickly in many cases, other
cases -- and the associated stress and uncertainty -- linger for years after the
original hospitalization.
Whether or not the lawsuit results in a court
judgment, concerns about the magnitude of the hospital bill may increase if the
patient's liability includes court costs, execution costs,and perhaps even the
hospital's attorneys' fees.Patients also understandably fear what comes after a court judgment: a
judgment entitles a creditor to garnish wages, attach bank accounts, or direct a
sheriff to levy on property within limits imposed by state and federal exemption
laws.Even if a patient has
property of little value, the prospects of loss can be frightening and
devastating.
Aside from the health impact of stress, large medical
debts can dampen a patient's likelihood of receiving future medical care.Medical providers may refuse to give non-emergency care, or patients
indebted for prior care may fear to seek more.This is especially troubling for patients with chronic problems.Debt, therefore, may exacerbate the health care access problems
experienced by the uninsured and underinsured.Large hospital debts and related financial distress also make it harder
to afford adequate food, safe housing and other basic necessities.
4. Large hospital debts and collection activity directly affect patients'
families
Various studies have observed the use of third party
credit for medical bills.
This shifts the burden of collection and risk of non-payment away from the
medical provider.Providers
understandably find this prospect attractive even though they incur costs
associated with processing credit card charges.
Some health care providers and third parties are
taking this to the next level: they are joining forces to offer medical-specific
credit products to patients.Many of these products do not shift the risk of non-payment entirely away
from providers, but the risks and burdens on the whole seem far lower for
providers than those associated with the traditional billing and collection
process.
These products have received little systematic
attention at this point and they raise a host of issues.According to a quote in the American Medical News, the director of the
American Medical Association Institute for Ethics worries that these products
may result in "further commercialization of the patient-physician
relationship," and that cards targeted toward those with poor credit histories
"are in essence endorsing the idea that impoverished patients who have the
worst credit history should sign up for another credit card, which by the way
will pay [medical providers] off first."
For purposes of this hearing, however, it suffices to
say that these products do not seem to address the needs of uninsured hospital
patients.A $40,000 credit card
bill is not much better than a $40,000 hospital bill, and may be worse.Some medical credit products offer interest free installments for limited
periods, but the interest rates jump to 20% or higher thereafter. Even at a
lower interest rate, the patient may face a perpetual oppressive obligation.To the extent lenders and providers encourage medical-specific home
equity products, it is worth noting that undiscounted hospital bills rolled into
home mortgage loans raise the stakes further; home equity loans for large
medical bills reduce retirement security through the loss of equity, and may
lead to home loss altogether.
In addition, one again needs to consider the credit
report implications.Credit cards
and loans are trade accounts that have a wider range of credit-rating effects
than medical debts.Thus, in
addition to all of the previously discussed effects of medical debt, the mere
existence of a trade account can affect the patient's credit score,
particularly if the liability is large or if the patient recently opened other
accounts.In addition, the lender
is likely to regularly report any lateness in repayment, further affecting the
patient's credit rating.Given
these risks, medical-specific credit products are not likely to offer the
solution to the problems being discussed today.
Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in
this important hearing.I would be
glad to help the Subcommittee however I can.
|