• Lawmakers want to crack down on how and when hospitals and debt collectors can recoup unpaid medical debt under a two-bill package
  • The bipartisan effort wouldn’t stop debt collections all together, but, if passed, would prevent actions like foreclosure or wage garnishment
  • It’s unclear whether the package will be taken up in the Republican-led House. The policy push is bipartisan and bicameral

LANSING — When Lansing resident Leah Ciolek gave birth a few years ago to a baby boy, she thought she’d done everything right.

She had insurance. She had a plan. She had a healthy delivery.

Then came the bill — and a level of debt, shame and stress she said “followed me for years … damaged my credit, dramatically increased my borrowing costs and delayed milestones at the very start of my adult financial life. 

“This isn’t a personal failure, it’s a system failure,” Ciolek, a mother of two, told lawmakers during a Wednesday meeting of the state Senate Finance, Insurance and Consumer Protection Committee, which is considering legislation to limit the ways medical debt can be collected. 

“Our system is failing the people for care that they need and cannot avoid.”

RELATED: 

Stories like Ciolek’s aren’t uncommon, both in Michigan and nationally. 

In July, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer announced the state would forgive over $144 million in medical debt for nearly 210,000 Michiganders as part of a state partnership with the nonprofit Undue Medical Debt. As of 2025, state officials estimated around 700,000 Michiganders struggle with medical debt.

Nationally, medical debt affects more than 100 million Americans who owe a combined $220 billion, according to a 2024 memorandum from the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

But state Senate lawmakers are hoping to change that, taking up a two-bill, bipartisan package on Wednesday aimed at curbing how and when health care facilities or medical debt providers can recoup costs from patients.

“These bills focus on protecting patients — making sure that, when an unexpected medical cost or emergency strikes, seeking care does not cost Michiganders their livelihoods,” said state Sen. Sarah Anthony, D-Lansing, one of the package’s two sponsors.

She and Sen. Jonathan Lindsey, R-Coldwater, are the driving force behind Senate Bill 701 and Senate Bill 702. 

Taken together, Lindsey said the bills would still allow medical debt to be collected. However, the goal of the package is to “help protect some of the most vulnerable people … people that go in and often end up being saddled with this debt that ruins their livelihoods.”  

The package would, among other things: 

  • Prevent a large health care facility or medical debt collector from taking what the legislation refers to as “extraordinary collection actions,” which includes causing someone’s arrest for unpaid medical debt, garnishing their wages or foreclosing on property.
  • Prohibit a large health care facility or medical debt buyer from charging a late fee or interest that exceeds 3% of the amount of that medical debt per year.
  • Bar health care facilities or medical debt providers from charging a patient interest or a late fee on medical debt until 90 days after the final invoice for said medical debt.
  • Ban deferring, denying or requiring a patient fully pay their medical debt before providing urgent services.
  • Require a health care facility to, within 60 days, refund a patient who had paid more money than was owed on medical debt after financial assistance was applied. 

The Senate package is tie-barred to an identical two-bill, bipartisan state House legislative package, House Bills 5254 and 5255, meaning none of the four can be signed into law unless all pass. 

“There’s such a deep desire from our constituents to tackle issues around health care and health care costs,” Lindsey said. “Obviously, the medical debt protection part of it is on the back end — when it’s already become too late, and people are often in crisis.”

While a number of groups testified in favor of the effort on Wednesday just one — the Consumer Data Industry Association, or CDIA — submitted a card in opposition to the proposal.

In a statement sent to Bridge Michigan following the hearing, a spokesperson for the association argued the state-level legislation was preempted by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and, if signed into law, could “unleash unintended consequences because the credit reporting system operates across all jurisdictions.”

“Only national, uniform standards can achieve the dual goals of protecting consumers and maintaining accurate credit reports, which is why CDIA respectfully opposes this provision,” wrote Benjamin Corb, vice president for communications and public affairs with the Consumer Data Industry Association.

An official with the Michigan Health and Hospital Association (MHA) — a group which did not testify Wednesday but represents all community hospitals throughout the state —  told Bridge after the hearing they are still reviewing the package “and remain engaged with legislators on opportunities to positively impact health care affordability.”

“Ensuring patients have access to high-quality hospital care in their communities is deeply important to Michigan hospitals, and we look forward to continued collaboration with the Legislature to find solutions that preserve vital services close to home,” said Elise Gonzales, MHA’s director of communications.

Whether there’s appetite for the proposal in the Republican-led House  remains to be seen. 

House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, has already vowed to pass a limited number of bills this term, continuing a trend from 2025.

Hall’s office did not immediately return a request for comment. 

Senators did not vote on the two bills during Wednesday’s committee hearing.

Creative Commons License

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under our Republication Guidelines. Questions? Email republishing@bridgemi.com