Representative Genevieve Mina (House District 19) introduced House Bill 178 on April 25, 2025, proposing to prohibit furnishing and reporting of medical debt to credit reporting companies and to bar landlords and employers from asking about or using medical debt as an eligibility criterion.

Why it matters: Testifiers told the committee that medical debt is prevalent in Alaska and often stems from emergencies, billing errors or insurance gaps. Removing medical debt from credit reporting, they said, protects consumers from long‑lasting financial harm that can block access to housing, loans and employment.

Key provisions and sponsor’s rationale
Representative Mina told the committee the bill would emulate the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule by banning the reporting and furnishing of medical debt to consumer credit reporting agencies and prohibiting landlords and employers from using medical debt in tenant or hiring decisions. Mina told the committee that medical debt is widespread and “shouldn’t be used as a predictor of financial trustworthiness.” She cited data showing roughly 14 percent of Alaskans had medical debt in collections in 2021 and said Alaska’s median medical debt in collections was about $1,533—near double the national median reported in the evidence she presented.

Invited testimony
Clark Hansen, managing director for advocacy at the ALS Association, urged support for HB 178, saying the bill would protect patients with costly chronic conditions from discrimination in housing and employment and reduce financial instability. Hansen told the committee, “I urge the committee to support this bill and help make Alaska a state where medical debt does not dictate one's opportunities or quality of life.” Hansen described ALS care costs that can average “between $150,000 to $200,000 per year per patient,” and said removing medical debt from credit reports helps patients access loans and housing for needed equipment and adaptations.

A representative from the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society said similar concerns apply to cancer patients, citing data that a patient’s care in the first year after diagnosis can total hundreds of thousands of dollars and that 42 percent of cancer patients deplete life savings within two years of diagnosis. The Alaska Public Interest Research Group (ACPIRG) also testified in support, describing Alaska’s high insurance premiums and limited competition as factors that increase the risk of medical debt.

Questions and concerns from committee members
Some legislators pressed testifiers on practical consequences. Representative Sadler asked whether concealing medical debt from lenders or landlords might mask information a mortgage lender or landlord needs about a borrower’s ability to pay. Committee members discussed alternatives such as providing separate scores or adjusted indicators that exclude involuntary medical debt. Representatives also asked whether states can regulate what contributes to widely used credit models; testifiers said states do have some regulatory authority but that a federal standard would be more comprehensive. Witnesses noted the CFPB rule—issued in January 2025 and intended to phase in changes—has been delayed and remains uncertain at the federal level.

Related policy examples
Testimony noted other state approaches: the top three credit reporting agencies had recently removed medical debts under $500 from scoring; some states have limited medical‑debt collection actions (Florida and Virginia were cited for time limits on medical debt lawsuits), Delaware has restricted creditor remedies against homes for medical debt, and New Jersey allocated funds to cancel medical debt in limited programs.

Committee action
After invited testimony and questioning, the committee set HB 178 aside for later consideration; no vote on the bill was taken during the hearing. The committee requested that parties providing data follow up in writing with the committee where appropriate.

Ending: Committee members said they would review the written follow‑up materials and consider how the state bill aligns with or diverges from federal rulemaking. No changes were adopted at the April 25 hearing.