Robert Scott (D-VA)
Protecting Workers' Wages from Medical Debt Act
A Democratic bill with 5 Democratic cosponsors · See all 5 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is called the Protecting Workers' Wages from Medical Debt Act. It stops the garnishment of employee wages for the payment of medical debt. The bill applies this ban across all United States and State courts, as well as State officers and agencies. Medical debt is defined as debt arising from items and services furnished by a health care facility or provider. The legislation also repeals section 10 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Finally, the bill takes effect six months after its enactment.
Yes· 3 of 25
- Scored +9
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Provides critical financial relief by preventing wage seizure for medical debts.
- Scored +8
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
Highly beneficial for individuals with chronic conditions who are more likely to accrue medical debt.
- Scored +6
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
Prevents medical debt from destabilizing household income.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
Limits the ability of State courts and agencies to enforce medical debt judgments.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Section 2, amending the Fair Labor Standards Act by adding SEC. 8. PROHIBITION ON WAGE GARNISHMENT FOR MEDICAL DEBTS., stops employee wages from being subject to garnishment for medical debt, which protects workers from having their paychecks reduced for this reason.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Based on the provided text, there are no explicitly stated negative impacts or burdens identified for individuals or groups.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Provides critical financial relief by preventing wage seizure for medical debts. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Highly beneficial for individuals with chronic conditions who are more likely to accrue medical debt. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Prevents medical debt from destabilizing household income. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Disproportionately benefits groups that historically face higher medical debt burdens. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Disproportionately benefits groups that historically face higher medical debt burdens. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Disproportionately benefits groups that historically face higher medical debt burdens. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Protects wages for employees, including immigrants who may lack comprehensive insurance. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Protects working-age adults from medical debt garnishment. Would women be better off under this? — Provides financial protection for women who may bear higher medical costs due to reproductive health. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Protects young workers from medical debt garnishment. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Provides general financial protection for workers. Would farmers be better off under this? — Protects the wages of agricultural employees. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Provides general financial protection for workers. Would men be better off under this? — Provides general financial protection for workers. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Provides general financial protection for workers. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Beneficial for seniors who are still employed and facing high medical costs. Would students be better off under this? — Protects young workers who may be students. Would union members be better off under this? — Provides general financial protection for workers. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Provides general financial protection for workers. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Provides general financial protection for workers. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Provides general financial protection for workers.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Prevents the loss of essential income for medical debt, which helps families avoid further poverty. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Protecting wages helps individuals maintain the ability to pay rent, potentially reducing medical-debt induced homelessness.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Protects consumers from having their wages seized to pay for healthcare-related debts.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill imposes a federal prohibition on wage garnishment that overrides State court and agency processes. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Limits the ability of State courts and agencies to enforce medical debt judgments.
- 10/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/24/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/14/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Greg CasarDemocrat · Texas
Adelita GrijalvaDemocrat · Arizona
Summer LeeDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Ilhan OmarDemocrat · Minnesota
Frederica WilsonDemocrat · Florida