WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 1079

Requires intervention in incidents involving incarcerated individuals

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Cordell Cleare and 1 co-sponsor

Ensures Idaho Patient Act caps apply to any action derived from a medical-debt judgment, and treats original and derived actions as one for fee caps, closing loopholes.

REFERRED TO CODES
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 1079

Bill Summary — S 1079 (Idaho)

Title: Relating to the Idaho Patient Act; amending Section 48-305, Idaho Code — clarifies application of collection-fee limits to actions derived from medical-debt judgments

Note: The packet provided contains materials from multiple jurisdictions (including a Massachusetts S 1079 on “early evidence kits” and mixed legislative action entries). This summary focuses on the Idaho bill text and fiscal note in the packet, which amend Idaho Code § 48‑305.

Purpose / Intent

To prevent debt collectors and subsequent holders of medical-debt judgments from circumventing the fee, cost, and attorney‑fee limitations in the Idaho Patient Act by bringing new actions, or selling/transferring or otherwise deriving claims from existing medical‑debt judgments. The bill clarifies that the statutory caps apply to any action, proceeding, or judgment founded on or derived from a covered judgment.

Key provisions

  • Amends Idaho Code § 48‑305 to explicitly state that the limitations on costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees in the Idaho Patient Act apply to:
    • Every action, proceeding, or judgment to which the Act applies; and
    • Every action, proceeding, or judgment founded on or derived from such a judgment (including new causes of action on a judgment, judgment‑recovery cases, or judgments sold, transferred, or assigned).
  • Treats the original action and judgment and any subsequent actions or judgments as a single action or judgment for purposes of computing/applying the fee limits.
  • Reaffirms existing caps and mechanics for awards:
    • Uncontested judgment: court may award, in addition to principal, up to $350 or up to 100% of the outstanding principal (whichever is less), plus prejudgment and any postjudgment interest.
    • Contested judgment: court may award, in addition to principal, up to $750 or up to 100% of outstanding principal (whichever is less), plus prejudgment and any postjudgment interest.
    • Post‑judgment motions and writs: up to $75 for a successful writ of attachment to a particular garnishee and $25 for subsequent writs to the same garnishee; garnishment service fees permitted as per county rules.
  • Provides process for supplemental awards in contested judgments where incurred fees are “grossly disproportionate” to statutory caps and were incurred due to the patient’s willful avoidance; allows court discretion to award supplemental reasonable fees considering Idaho R. Civ. P. 54(e)(3) factors.
  • If the patient prevails in a contested judgment, the patient may recover all costs and fees incurred in contesting the action; the patient owes no liability for the nonprevailing party’s costs, fees, or prejudgment interest.
  • Declares an emergency and sets the effective date: in full force and effect on and after July 1, 2025.

Who is affected

  • Patients in Idaho with medical debt covered by the Idaho Patient Act (protections strengthened/clarified).
  • Original creditors, debt buyers, debt collectors, and subsequent judgment holders pursuing medical‑debt collection in Idaho courts.
  • Idaho courts (clarifies how to apply caps across successive/derived collection actions).
  • County governments only to the extent of garnishment service fees (per existing law).

Fiscal impact and procedural notes

  • Fiscal note attached by proponents states no fiscal impact to the state general fund — the clarification requires no state expenditure.
  • The bill was introduced in the Idaho legislature in early 2025 and (per the packet) includes an emergency clause with a July 1, 2025 effective date if enacted.
  • Contact listed on the fiscal note: Senator Kelly Anthon and Representative Jason Monks.

Practical effect

The amendment closes a potential loophole allowing successive collectors or assignees to avoid statutory caps by bringing new proceedings or relying on transferred judgments. It consolidates original and subsequent collection efforts for fee‑cap calculations, limiting recoverable collection costs and increasing predictability and protection for patients with covered medical debt.

If you want, I can:
- Produce a plain‑language explainer for patients or providers; or
- Compare this amendment to the current §48‑305 language side‑by‑side.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.