Assemblymember Max Carter introduced Assembly Bill 204 on May 31, which seeks to change how medical debt is collected and reported in Nevada. Carter described the bill as a compromise developed among more than a dozen stakeholders; primary aims included restricting some collections and credit reporting and protecting consumers from garnishment of bank accounts and certain extraordinary collection methods.

Carter said the bill was amended repeatedly during stakeholder negotiations and that the current reprint imposes timelines before certain collection actions may begin (for example, a 180‑day waiting period before extraordinary measures), requires notice to consumers, and changes reporting practices to credit agencies. He emphasized that wage garnishment controls would include safeguards so household earnings are not fully seized.

Proponents included patient‑advocacy and disease organizations and the Clark County Collection Services, which said it supported the reprint. The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and other patient groups urged continued interim work to refine solutions and recommended a task force. Supporters said the bill is an initial step to protect families from the long‑term harms of medical debt while preserving providers’ ability to collect through a formalized process.

Opponents — including the Nevada Hospital Association, Nevada Rural Hospital Partners, the Nevada State Medical Association, the Vegas Chamber and the Consumer Data Industry Association — expressed concerns about several elements. Hospitals and physicians warned that an open‑ended moratorium on collections during declared emergencies (the bill’s section 15) could extend for years (COVID‑19 lasted about three years) and create untenable cash‑flow problems for providers, particularly rural and small practices. The Consumer Data Industry Association raised concerns about potential conflicts with federal credit‑reporting law (citing "15 USC 1 61" in testimony) and warned of preemption arguments. Creditors’ attorneys also opposed certain disclosure and reporting requirements as interfering with judgments and court processes.

Carter offered an on‑record proposal to amend section 15 to limit the emergency moratorium to six months and to remove a reference to the laws of "another state" from the text; legal staff indicated removing the out‑of‑state reference is technically straightforward and applying a six‑month cap to paragraph c of section 15 could also be drafted. Committee members asked the sponsor to circulate any amendment quickly; the sponsor and stakeholders agreed to continue work in the interim and planned a behind‑the‑bar meeting to consider revisions. No committee vote on final passage occurred at the hearing.

Why it matters: Supporters said the bill would reduce credit reporting harms and protect consumers from aggressive collections; opponents warned the emergency moratorium and reporting requirements could impose operational and legal burdens on providers and credit reporting markets.

What’s next: The sponsor asked stakeholders to provide amendment language promptly; the committee indicated it would consider the amendment in a follow‑up meeting.