Understanding Minnesota's Medical Debt Law: What Providers Need to Know

Understanding the 2024 medical debt law in Minnesota: What Providers Need to Know
Thomas Pearson, JD and William Amberg, JD

The statute for Minnesota that was passed in 2024 reads as follows:
62J.807 DENIAL OF HEALTH TREATMENT OR SERVICES DUE TO OUTSTANDING MEDICAL DEBT.
(a) A health care provider must not deny medically necessary health treatment or services to a patient or any
member of the patient's family or household because of current or previous outstanding medical debt owed
by the patient or any member of the patient's family or household to the health care provider, regardless of
whether the health treatment or service may be available from another health care provider.
(b) As a condition of providing medically necessary health treatment or services in the circumstances
described in paragraph (a), a health care provider may require the patient to enroll in a payment plan for the
outstanding medical debt owed to the health care provider. The payment plan must be reasonable and must
take into account any information disclosed by the patient regarding the patient's ability to pay. Before
entering into the payment plan, a health care provider must notify the patient that if the patient is unable to
make all or part of the agreed-upon installment payments, the patient must communicate the patient's
situation to the health care provider and must pay an amount the patient can afford.
This lunch and learn will educate mental health providers in private practice, or small group
practice owners, about this statute in the present form. Although the MPA legislative committee
is attempting to modify or change the language of this statute, it currently is in effect, as written.
There are ethical implications for mental health providers because of conflicting practice
issues, such as deciding to not provide services when there is a conflict of interest to the
provider, or the provider being able to maintain impartial judgement to a client’s issue when
there is a debt issue as well as the therapeutic reason for treatment. This training will discuss
ways mental health providers can address these conflicts, with language to address the issue
that can be used on a website, or how to address the issue in policy and procedure related to
one’s practice. Case examples will be offered for this training.

Participants will be able to:
1. Describe how to ethically and legally follow this statute as it currently applies to your
mental health practice.
2. Explain the ethical issues for psychologists when having to treat persons who owe a debt.
3. Give examples of what providers can do when in this situation.

About the Presenters:

Bill Amberg has over three decades of experience in politics and law in St. Paul, Washington,
DC, and across the country. Amberg has experience lobbying in the areas of healthcare,
environment, agriculture, taxation, and local government, amongst others. In the past, Mr.
Amberg worked as a legislative aide in the U.S. House of Representatives, as research director
for several political campaigns, as Director of Communications and Research for a state
political party, and as an Assistant Attorney General in the Health and Antitrust Division of the
Minnesota Attorney General's Office. He has led several seminars on the legislature and
health law for the bar association. His education includes a BA in politics and philosophy from Minnesota State, an MA in politics
and philosophy from the University of Notre Dame, and a JD from the Washington College of
Law at the American University.

Tom Pearson practices law in Minnesota in the areas of civil litigation and administrative
procedure. He is a 1975 graduate of the University of Notre Dame, and he earned his law
degree from the University of Denver in 1978. He has been practicing law in Minnesota since
1978. Mr. Pearson has extensive experience in civil litigation and in administrative law proceedings.
That experience includes numerous jury trials, bench trials, disciplinary and licensing
proceedings, and appellate advocacy. His practice is focused on representing health
professionals in matters involving licensing, disciplinary investigations and business planning
and practice. Mr. Pearson’s experience facilitates early evaluation of disputes, development
and implementation of cost-effective defense strategies, and effective and successful
representation of clients in various types of legal proceedings.

The speakers have indicated no conflicts of interest to report.

The Minnesota Psychological Association is approved by the American Psychological Association to sponsor
continuing education for psychologists. The Minnesota Psychological Association maintains responsibility for
this program and its content.