Delay, Deny, Depose: How Debt Collection and Health Care Costs are Interconnected

Debt collectors are probably the most litigious abusers of our court system. They tax public resources with each and every case they file. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC files about 3,000 collection suits per week, according to information from the CFPB and depositions. The costs to the court for facilities and personnel far outweigh the cost of reaching a non-default judgment. (Which might be why the courts act like a mill, churning out defaults in favor of the debt collector.)

When individuals file pro se suits against the debt collector for violation of the FDCPA and invasion of privacy, the company will fight to keep the case away from a jury. Certain judges, like Trump nominee Lee P. Rudofsky have a pro big business agenda. In my case, PRA was allowed to file anything and everything it wanted to under seal, hiding the evidence that it had no legitimate defense.

Infamous Insurer United Health got called out and stopped from using this same tactic. (See this post.)

There is a connection between debt collectors and health care. Coverage for costs that are denied by insurers are borne by the insured, or the insured goes without care.

Insurance companies wield their mighty power with the medical providers to obtain “member discounts” for the price of care. Some providers, such as UAMS in Arkansas, act like piranhas when they sniff out an uninsured potential patient. For example, one man was brought to UAMS for a traumatic brain injury. He was uninsured. UAMS held him against his will for two weeks, restraining him with physical and chemical restraints. After allowing him to leave “against medical advice”, UAMS sent a bill for over $46,000. By the grace of God, the newly disabled man qualified for retroactive insurance. All of a sudden, the bill was reduced to about $20,000.

Had the non-consenting patient been stuck with the $46,000 bill, it would have gone to collections. It may have been sold to a debt buyer for pennies on the dollar. Years or a decade latter, had the man not kept meticulous records, or prevailed in a suit against the hospital, the debt collector would revictimize the man.

If sued, the debt collector would be likely to deny making phone calls repeatedly. There is a good chance there would be falsified affidavits and falsified self-generated business records. UAMS has already destroyed evidence and falsified records. Debt collectors including Portfolio Recovery are known by the CFPB and several state attorney generals to falsify affidavits and base decisions to collect on inadequate records.

If any litigation concerning the medical debt is brought in the Eighth Circuit, it is highly likely the debt collector will prevail or settle for an amount that makes the “cost of doing business as usual” an acceptable risk.

Just ask PRA Group, Inc. former chief risk and compliance officer Laura White or present officer Keith Warren.