There seems to be conflicting opinions on here about this so-called HIPAA process to remove paid medical debts from your CR. It seems I am one of only few who take the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services opinion on this as credible and literal. I would love to put this to rest.
Maybe you can find a direct quote of some law somewhere, FCRA or HIPAA, etc., anywhere, that specifies something to the effect of "It is against HIPAA laws to report a paid medical debt", or some case where someone has won a lawsuit because a CRA was reporting a paid medical debt. I promise I will not only apologize and drop the subject - I will in fact use the "process" myself. Afterall, you seem to be my biggest critic on the issue when I quote directly what the governing agency's opinion is - that there is no violation.
Let's keep it friendly of course... 
@bigtim wrote:There seems to be conflicting opinions on here about this so-called HIPAA process to remove paid medical debts from your CR. It seems I am one of only few who take the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services opinion on this as credible and literal.
With all due respect, as likely the only person on this board with an actual DEGREE in Logic (seriously, not making this up), I simply must interject. This is what you keep quoting (I know we've all seen it before, but here it is for the sake of completeness).
"Does the HIPAA Privacy Rule prevent reporting to consumer credit reporting agencies or otherwise create any conflict with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)?
Answer:
No."
I accept this as true and accurate. I accept that HIPAA does NOT prevent reporting to CRA's as appropriate when appropriate. However, HIPAA absolutely *DOES* prevent, for example, the name of an OC showing up on your CR if it would allow someone reading your CR to ascertain detailed medical information about you. Surely you aren't disputing that it's a violation of HIPAA if your CR states that you owe money to "Prostate Cancer Treatment Center" or "AIDS Testing Inc." So clearly there are SOME circumstances where HIPAA prevents certain TYPES of reporting to CRA's; that's why the names of those accounts show up only to you. It does not prevent reporting to CRA's, but it does provide guidelines for how it must be done; this is where minimum necessary comes in. Reporting to a CRA on an unpaid account is often the minimum necessary to obtain payment. Once that payment is obtained, it is no longer necessary to report to a CRA for business purposes.
What you are doing is what's known as a "straw man" fallacy; I encourage you to look it up if you're unfamiliar with it, but essentially you keep saying "If you disagree with me, you must disagree with this official website" which no one is actually disputing. The website is correct. Fused is correct. There's no conflict between the two.
Okay, now feel free to continue fighting with your straw man
I'm still waiting, anxiously of course .... 
@bigtim wrote:
I'm still waiting, anxiously of course ....
As we anxiously as we are, I suspect, in waiting for you to point *us* to a case where it was proven in a court that continued collection activity/reporting AFTER payment was made does NOT violate the HIPAA laws.
Whilst I will be honest and say that I have not found a case that supports our position, I will say that the codes DO stipulate that when necessary, covered entities can assign debts to CAs to collect and during such collection have business purpose.
The operative phrase being that "during such collection have business purpose." I'd have to say that once that purpose is fulfilled (i.e. payment made), they no longer have that protection via the covered entities. Unless perhaps the CAs agree to be a PHI clearinghouse?
Further, here's a tidbit: only if there is a valid, signed, authorized consensual agreement in writing can a CA collect medical debts with the HIPAA's grace. If you deal with a CA collecting for a medical debt, why not try asking them for a copy of that agreement? Just sayin'.
@bigtim wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
FTR, calling out a Mod is a bit on the rude side. Just sayin'.
Considering that they've been here long enough and helped enough people that they've been asked to be Mods perhaps deserves a bit more respect than one would find on an elementary school playground? Perhaps?I have respect for the mod(s), and I hope they have respect for my right to disagree as well - it's nothing personal. I'm sure fused is a great person and has helped many, I too shall probably need his/her help sometime. Should I not be able to disagree or have a healthy debate with a mod?
Oh, believe me, I've not always agreed with many here ~ sometimes even Mods. But to direct a thread specifically toward them (not one asking for help) in a challenging manner just isn't ... respectful.
Trust me. I've been online since 14bps was considered FAST. I'm a geek. And that's not proper netiquette.
ETA: And yes, Fused is a great person. I can sincerely credit him and his help for being a strong factor in our being able to buy a house.
But Ilecs is still my honey.
@Anonymous wrote:
@bigtim wrote:
I'm still waiting, anxiously of course ....
As we anxiously as we are, I suspect, in waiting for you to point *us* to a case where it was proven in a court that continued collection activity/reporting AFTER payment was made does NOT violate the HIPAA laws.
That's funny. Your proof that this HIPAA stuff is correct because I can't prove it's not? Are you trying to amuse me or confuse me? 