Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Medical Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 6 Democratic cosponsors · See all 6 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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 known as the Medical Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2026. It amends title 11 of the United States Code to provide bankruptcy protections specifically for medically distressed debtors. The legislation defines what constitutes medical debt and a medically distressed debtor based on medical expenses, missed support payments due to medical issues, or employment changes due to medical reasons or public health emergencies. It allows these debtors to exempt up to $250,000 in value for a residence, cooperative, or burial plot. Additionally, the bill waives certain administrative requirements, waives credit counseling requirements, addresses student loan undue hardship, requires a debtor attestation, and excludes medically distressed debtor bankruptcies from consumer reports.
Yes· 3 of 29
- Scored +9
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Provides critical protections and easier bankruptcy paths for those with limited income facing high medical costs.
- Scored +9
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
Directly benefits those with chronic illnesses or disabilities who are most prone to medical debt.
- Scored +7
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Seniors are more likely to incur high medical debts and benefit from residence and burial plot exemptions.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Exemption for Residence or Burial Plot: Under Section 3, a medically distressed debtor may elect to exempt up to $250,000 in value in real or personal property used as a residence, a cooperative used as a residence, or a burial plot. This protects a person's home and final resting place from being entirely seized during bankruptcy.
-
Waiver of Administrative Requirements: Under Section 4, certain administrative requirements under Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 do not apply if the debtor is a medically distressed debtor. This removes specific hurdles for individuals navigating the bankruptcy process due to medical hardships.
-
Credit Counseling Waiver: Under Section 5, the requirement for credit counseling is waived for a medically distressed debtor. This eases the procedural burden on individuals dealing with medical crises.
-
Student Loan Undue Hardship: Under Section 6, student loan debt exceptions do not apply if the debtor is a medically distressed debtor. This provision helps people struggling with medical debt find relief regarding their student loans during bankruptcy.
-
Exclusion from Consumer Reports: Under Section 8, any information related to the bankruptcy of a medically distressed debtor is excluded from consumer reports. This protects an individual's credit report from being damaged by a medical bankruptcy filing.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Attestation Requirement and Penalties: Under Section 7, a debtor seeking relief as a medically distressed debtor must file a statement of medical expenses declaring under penalty of perjury that the medical expenses were not incurred for the purpose of qualifying as a medically distressed debtor. This adds a strict reporting requirement and potential legal risk for individuals filing for bankruptcy.
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 protections and easier bankruptcy paths for those with limited income facing high medical costs. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Directly benefits those with chronic illnesses or disabilities who are most prone to medical debt. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Protects home equity and credit scores for middle-class families devastated by medical bills. Would retired people be better off under this? — Highly beneficial for retirees facing health crises and the associated debt. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors are more likely to incur high medical debts and benefit from residence and burial plot exemptions. Would students be better off under this? — Creates a new pathway for student loan discharge based on medical distress. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Provides significant relief for those facing medical crises during their primary earning years. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Positive impact for veterans with medical conditions not fully covered by VA benefits. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Provides a pathway for student loan relief in cases of medical distress. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Positive impact due to systemic health disparities that often lead to higher medical debt. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Positive impact due to systemic health disparities that often lead to higher medical debt. Would men be better off under this? — Positive impact for men who may face specific high-cost medical needs. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Positive impact due to systemic health disparities that often lead to higher medical debt. Would women be better off under this? — Positive impact for women who may face specific high-cost medical needs. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Positive impact for those facing medical-related financial distress. Would children be better off under this? — Protects households where children are dependents and have high medical costs. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Positive impact for those facing medical-related financial distress. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Positive impact for those in rural areas facing medical bankruptcy. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Positive impact for those in urban areas facing medical bankruptcy. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Positive impact for those facing medical-related financial distress.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — Allows medically distressed debtors to exempt up to $250,000 in residential property from bankruptcy. Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Provides significant bankruptcy protections for those whose medical conditions lead to financial distress. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Mitigates the impact of medical debt which is a primary driver of poverty in the US. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Increased home exemptions for medically distressed debtors reduce the likelihood of losing residence during bankruptcy.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Protects consumers from long-term financial ruin due to medical debt through bankruptcy reforms. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Helps individuals recover from medical debt, potentially increasing their future spending power.
- Education And Technology
- Does this reduce what student borrowers owe or repay? — Adds 'medically distressed debtor' as a factor for determining undue hardship for student loan discharge.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — Excludes bankruptcy information for medically distressed debtors from consumer credit reports.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Reducing the financial fear of medical bankruptcy may encourage individuals to seek necessary care.
- 9/24/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/14/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 5 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
3 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Tammy BaldwinDemocrat · Wisconsin
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Cory BookerDemocrat · New Jersey
Ben LujánDemocrat · New Mexico
Peter WelchDemocrat · Vermont
Elizabeth WarrenDemocrat · Massachusetts