Jump to content



Recommended Posts

If your having trouble with a Doctor or hospital, try this in order:



Follow these instructions:




You will be using the HIPAA letter program

http://whychat.5u.co...AA PROGRAM.html


If the account is NOT on your reports, send the CA this:



If the account IS on your reports, send each CRA the initial dispute letter



  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That "method" works with OLD medical debt.  There is absolutely NO legal basis for this alleged method of removing medical debt.  It is nothing more than a medical version of the "nut case" letter.  If this method DOES work it is only because the CA that is on the CR no longer has a business relationship with the original creditor and cannot legally validate the account.  So the 30 days elapses and the CRA has to delete the TL.  Nothing more.  It isn't fancy.  It isn't HIPAA it is the FCRA and FCDPA laws.  


"It is more than likely that the CA reporting on your credit reports has NOTHING to do with whatever Dr may or may not have  billed you over X years ago. The most likely thing is that your account was swept into the garbage heap of discounted written off accounts, picked up by a data miner and sold for a few cents to a JDB ( junk debt buyer)."


THIS ^^^^ is the mantra that WhyChat uses over and over to explain medical debt on a credit report.  However, there is absolutely NO proof of this happening ANYWHERE, EVER.  Data mining is NOT possible due to the HITEC Act which requires multiple levels of security on encrypted patient files including billing.  


It does not violate HIPAA if the provider's name is Humpty Dumpty Orthopedic Clinic either.  What they cannot report is your ACTUAL medical data contained in your patient chart.  


The other part of this "method" that is over looked is that if you read it carefully enough you WILL be paying the original creditor to remove the debt.  This is also false that HIPAA is the reason the CA removes the TL.  If the OC accepts your payment then you can dispute the TL off as paid to original creditor.  The CA cannot legally validate a debt that no longer exists and they do not have a business relationship for.


It is NOT a HIPAA violation to report medical debt on a credit report.  If the collection agency has a current relationship with the medical provider they are not violating HIPAA either.  The following is DIRECTLY from the DHS/OCR government site on HIPAA and reporting on CRs:




Does the HIPAA Privacy Rule prevent health plans and providers from using debt collection agencies? Does the Privacy Rule conflict with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?



The Privacy Rule permits covered entities to continue to use the services of debt collection agencies. Debt collection is

recognized as a payment activity within the “payment” definition. See the definition of “payment” at45 CFR 164.501. Through a business associate arrangement, the covered entity may engage a debt collection agency to perform this function on its behalf. Disclosures to collection agencies are governed by other provisions of the Privacy Rule, such as the business associate and minimum necessary requirements.

The Department is not aware of any conflict between the Privacy Rule and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Where a
use or disclosure of protected health information is necessary for the covered entity to fulfill a legal duty, the Privacy Rule would permit such use or
disclosure as required by law.




Does the HIPAA Privacy Rule prevent reporting to consumer credit reporting agencies or otherwise create any conflict with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)?



No. The Privacy Rule’s definition of “payment” includes disclosures to consumer reporting agencies. These disclosures, however, are limited to the following protected health information about the individual: name and address; date of birth; social security number; payment history; and account number. In addition, disclosure of the name and address of the health care provider or health plan making the report is allowed. The covered entity may perform this payment activity directly, or may carry out this function through a third party, such as a collection agency, under a business associate arrangement.

The Privacy Rule permits uses and disclosures by the covered entity or its business associate as may be required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) or other law. Therefore, the Department does not believe there is a conflict between the Privacy Rule and legal duties imposed on data furnishers by FCRA.


Does the HIPAA Privacy Rule permit a covered entity or its collection agency to communicate with parties other than the patient (e.g., spouses or guardians) regarding payment of a bill?




Yes. The Privacy Rule permits a covered entity, or a business associate acting on behalf of a covered entity (e.g., acollection agency), to disclose protected health information as necessary to obtain payment for health care, and does not limit to whom such a disclosure may be made.
Therefore, a covered entity, or its business associate, may contact persons other than the individual as necessary to obtain payment for 
health care services. See 45 CFR 164.506© and the definition of “payment” at 45 CFR 164.501. However, the Privacy Rule requires a covered entity, or its business associate, to reasonably limit the amount of information disclosed for such purposes to the minimum necessary, as well as to abide by any reasonable requests for confidential communications and any agreed-to restrictions on the use or disclosure of protected health information. See 45 CFR 164.502( , 164.514(d), and 164.522.


***There is NO magic solution for removing a valid trade line that works 100% of the time and despite any "method" that alleges such incredible success rates you need to educate yourself before undertaking them.  Like any debt, if the statute to sue has not expired by filing a frivolous HIPAA dispute and protest you could simply wake the sleeping bear and find yourself being sued.


Also, like any other method once it has been used enough the CRAs are wise to it and no longer simply delete because they don't know what to do with it or do not want the hassle.  If you go to the "other" board you will see more and more that the method is not working and many posters are on their 4th or 5th attempt trying it and have yet to realize that the creditor is validating the account and it isn't going to budge.  WhyChat keeps telling them to "follow the process" and ignores the issue that there is no legal basis to their claims.  


You didn't get into debt over night and you won't over night either.  There is no magic method of fixing it and sometimes fixing it means having to pay something you owe.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Yes.  They have a "method" of allegedly removing all kinds of very legal debt such as medical, judgments, deficiency balances, tax liens and NONE of it has any legal basis what so ever.  In fact when it comes to medical debt if you read the threads the CRAs have caught on to the purple ink, weird font, HIPAA dispute because now if you dispute a medical debt you get a fancy statement that states it can be legally reported and why from the CRAs.


There are a number of threads where people write back stating it isn't working and all that guru says to them over and over is "Follow this program exactly" or "you didn't follow the program it must be your fault" because their program NEVER fails.  


Just like any other debt the older it is the more likely a dispute will work because the reporting entity can no longer verify it.  I just responded to a thread over there last night for someone who had a medical procedure a year ago.  I explained why they got a bill and what to do next to deal with the debt and one of the minions came along screeching that the guru would "guide them through the process" and not to set up a payment plan for the debt, completely ignoring that this debt is BRAND NEW and well within the SOL for a lawsuit.  Just like another wacko with a lot of followers these people have no clue that the advice they give out is dangerous and could cause a lot of financial harm to the inexperienced that stumble on their forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.