
Medical debt vs. credit card debt: Which one should you pay off first?
We may receive commissions from some links to products on this page. Promotions are subject to availability and retailer terms.
It's important to know which debt to tackle first if you're facing both medical and credit card debt that won't fit into your budget.
bettphotos/Getty Images
If you're trying (and failing) to fit both your mounting medical bills and compounding credit card balances into your budget, you're certainly not alone. Finances are tight for a lot of people right now, thanks to years of high inflation and elevated borrowing rates, making it tough for the average person to find room in their finances for their debt. As a result, about 12% of Americans had to borrow money last year to pay for healthcare, despite most having some form of health insurance, according to a survey from West Health and Gallup. The average cardholder also owes about $8,000 in credit card debt, further exacerbating the issue.
But when money's tight and you can't tackle everything at once, knowing which type of debt to prioritize — medical or credit card — can save you money and help protect your financial future. The conventional wisdom of "pay off high-rate debt first" doesn't always apply when medical debt enters the picture, however. Unlike credit cards, medical debt operates under different rules in terms of interest charges, payment options and how it affects your credit score. These distinctions matter when you're deciding where to direct your limited funds.
But here's what makes this decision even trickier: Both types of debt can spiral out of control if ignored and there are often different strategies you should use to tackle them. Understanding these nuances is crucial for making the right call on what type of debt to prioritize.
Find out how to get help with your debt problems here.
Medical debt vs. credit card debt: Which one should you pay off first?
When cash is tight and you're choosing between paying medical debt and covering your credit card, here's a breakdown of what to consider:
Credit card debt damages your credit faster
If your main concern is protecting your credit score, credit card debt should take top priority. That's because credit card activity gets reported to the credit bureaus every month, and missing even a single payment can ding your score quickly. High credit card balances also hurt your credit utilization ratio, a key factor in FICO scoring.
Medical debt, on the other hand, has a longer grace period. Most providers don't report unpaid bills to credit bureaus right away. And even when they do, the major credit bureaus have updated their policies to lessen the impact of medical debt. For example, debts under $500 no longer show up on credit reports, and there's now a 12-month waiting period before larger medical debts get reported.
Explore the debt relief strategies available to you today.
Credit card debt compounds much faster
Credit card debt actively works against you every single day. Today's approximate 22% average credit card rate isn't just a number on your statement. It's compound interest that can quickly turn a manageable balance into one that you can't afford to pay, even if you don't spend another dime.
Credit cards also offer zero wiggle room on minimum payments. Miss one and you'll face late fees, penalty interest rates that can jump to 29.99% and immediate credit score damage. There's no negotiating with an algorithm, and credit card companies have zero incentive to work with you until you're already months behind.
So, it typically makes more sense to prioritize your credit card debt to keep the balance from growing — and keep the fees, penalty rates and credit damage at bay.
Collections risk is real for both — but faster for credit cards
Both medical and credit card debts can end up in collections, but credit card issuers are generally more aggressive and faster to act. If you miss a few payments, your account could be closed and sold to a third-party collection agency within months. That not only hurts your credit score but also opens you up to potential lawsuits, wage garnishments and fees and interest stacking on an already high balance.
Medical debt usually moves more slowly. Most providers wait several months and often send multiple notices before referring your bill to collections. This gives you time to explore payment assistance or negotiate a payment plan. And even if it does go to collections, the updated credit reporting rules may shield your score from immediate damage.
The bottom line
If you're trying to decide whether to pay off credit card or medical debt first, there's no universal answer that works for every person who's in debt. But, in general, prioritizing credit card debt makes more sense if you're trying to protect your credit score and avoid compounding interest charges. Credit cards report your payment behavior monthly, and interest compounds rapidly, so missing payments can lead to serious issues.
On the other hand, medical debt is often more forgiving — and more negotiable. If you're struggling with hospital or doctor bills, ask about financial assistance, payment plans or settlement plans. Ultimately, though, the best approach is to stay proactive with both types of debt. Ignoring either type can lead to serious consequences, but by understanding your options, you can start to take back control.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's what the military conflict in Iran could mean for oil and gas prices
The U.S. military strikes in Iran are raising questions about the impact on the oil and gas industry, including whether the widening conflict could result in higher energy prices for Americans. Oil prices jumped 4% on Sunday night shortly after the start of trading, but retreated as experts speculated that Iran is unlikely to close the Strait of Hormuz, a major commercial waterway that the country partly controls and that is strategically vital for the flow of crude into global markets. Still, the geopolitical crisis is sparking concerns that worsening hostilities could squeeze the world's supply of oil, which would likely drive up gas and other energy costs, as well for other products refined from crude. Iran said Monday that it launched an attack on the U.S. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, with witnesses telling multiple news agencies that they saw what appeared to be missiles over the country. Iran, a major producer of crude, controls the northern side of the Strait of Hormuz, which is used by ships carrying roughly 20% of the world's daily supply of oil. "In practice, Iranian efforts to 'close' the Strait could encompass a number of actions including attacking and detaining ships using the waterway, impeding navigability through the strait and, at the most extreme, laying mines in the sea," noted David Oxley, chief climate and commodities economist at Capital Economics, in a report. But, he added, "[S]o long as the conflict does not become a long-lasting war with no 'off ramp,' and disruption in the Strait remains limited to the lower-level actions seen up to now, we suspect that any initial spikes in global energy prices would dissipate before long." Here's what to know about the Iran conflict's potential impact on oil and gas prices. What's the impact so far on oil prices? After surging in early trading on Monday, prices of Brent crude, the international standard, dipped 0.1% to $76.98 by midday. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude, the U.S. benchmark, fell 3.8% to $71.06. Still, oil prices remain above their level before the hostilities between Israel and Iran began over a week ago, when a barrel of WTI crude was close to $68. Although Wall Street experts predict that Iran is unlikely to close the Strait of Hormuz, they note that ongoing tensions in the region could disrupt the energy market and send prices soaring. "Perhaps a bigger risk to the region's oil supply would be Israeli air strikes on Iran's oil production and export facilities, and/or attacks by Iranian proxy groups on oil production and export facilities in Iraq," Eurasia Group analysts said in a June 23 report. Israel so far has avoided targeting Iran's oil export industry. But if it were to do so, such strikes could disrupt the flow of several million barrels per day, sending Brent crude prices above $80 per barrel, according to the political risk consultancy. What would happen if the Strait of Hormuz is closed? Because the Strait of Hormuz is just 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, it's vulnerable to disruption. The channel connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. Although energy experts believe a closure of the Strait is unlikely, noting the adverse economic and geopolitical impact on Iran, they underline that a disruption to the flow of oil through the passage would send energy prices soaring. Interruptions to oil passing through the channel would severely impact markets in China, India, Japan and South Korea, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a branch of the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. imports only about 7% of its oil through the Strait of Hormuz. But any interference with shipments passing through the area could impact the global oil market by stifling supplies, according to experts. "[W]hile Iran has not yet targeted the route, even a limited disruption would severely impact global supply," Oxford Economics analysts said in a June 20 client note. "In a worst-case scenario, prices could spike to $130 per barrel and shave 0.8 percentage points off global GDP." The last time Brent crude topped $130 was in 2008, the result of a spike in energy demand and uncertainty in world energy supplies, according to the EIA. At the time, gasoline prices peaked at about $4.11 per gallon, or about $6.26 per gallon today after adjusting for inflation. What's the forecast for U.S. gas prices? American drivers are likely to see higher gas prices at the pump over the next week, with prices jumping between 10 cents and 15 cents a gallon, GasBuddy analyst Patrick DeHaan said. "Most/all of the recent and expected rise is due to the Middle East tensions/situation," he said in an email to CBS MoneyWatch. Even with that increase, U.S. drivers would still likely be paying less at the pump than they were a year ago. The average U.S. gas price now stands at $3.22 per gallon, down from $3.45 per gallon a year earlier, according to AAA. Kidney dialysis industry accused of maximizing profits over patients Pentagon officials reveal new details about U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear sites Netanyahu reacts to U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


Forbes
30 minutes ago
- Forbes
DOJ May Consider Dropping Its HPE-Juniper Networks Merger Challenge
Abigail Slater, US assistant attorney general nominee for US President Donald Trump, during a Senate ... More Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2025. Democratic senators pressed President Donald Trump's nominee for Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, on politicization of the Justice Department and recent efforts to gather names of FBI agents who worked on cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. Photographer: Daniel Heuer/Bloomberg © 2025 Bloomberg Finance LP The U.S. Department of Justice's challenge to the proposed acquisition of Juniper Networks by HPE signals a concerning trend in merger enforcement that could undermine American economic vitality in a crucial high-tech sector. While regulatory scrutiny of consolidations is vital, a blanket skepticism toward merger activity, particularly one that overlooks significant procompetitive benefits, risks stifling innovation and weakening the very markets it purports to protect. As I have previously discussed, robust merger and acquisition (M&A) activity is indispensable for a dynamic economy, facilitating capital reallocation to higher-valued uses and driving efficiency and innovation. In the fast-evolving landscape of enterprise networking, the proposed HPE-Juniper merger presents a compelling case for its potential to enhance, rather than diminish, competition. Tellingly, the European Commission (EC) recognized as much when it approved the acquisition. The Proposed Merger DOJ alleges that the merger would harm competition by bringing together the second (HPE) and third (Juniper) largest wireless local network providers of wireless local area network (WLAN) in the United States. DOJ stresses that 'this would leave U.S. enterprises facing two companies commanding over 70% of the market: the post-merger HPE and market leader Cisco Systems Inc." Factors Suggesting No Harm To Competition DOJ's complaint ignores a variety of factors strongly suggesting that the merger would not harm competition. It relies primarily on market concentration, which modern antitrust economics views as only the starting point in determining whether a merger might reduce competition. HPE and Juniper point out that DOJ's market definition ignores 'a broad set of players' that are competing for WLAN business as customers shift to AI and cloud-driven strategies. Indeed, the EC found that HPE-Juniper would 'continue to face competition from a wide range of competitors, including strong and established players on each of the markets.' Even accepting DOJ's market definition, Cisco would remain the largest player post-merger. The merged firm would be positioned to intensify beneficial competition with Cisco. As an industry analyst explains, if 'DOJ blocks the HPE-Juniper deal, Cisco stands to gain the most." If the merger goes forward, however, there could likely be increased pressure on all players to innovate and offer better value. DOJ is silent about the 'remaining 30%' of the market. As Scalia Professor John Yun puts it, 'nearly 67% of sales [would] occur outside of a combined HPE-Juniper." The Case for Beneficial Efficiencies The DOJ's narrow focus also risks missing substantial efficiency gains that could accrue to consumers and the broader economy. Combining HPE's extensive enterprise reach and complementary product portfolio with Juniper's cutting-edge, AI-powered Mist platform holds immense promise. This synergy is not merely about eliminating redundancies, but about forging a more integrated and sophisticated product offering. Such a combination could streamline product development, accelerate the deployment of advanced networking solutions, and yield significant cost savings that can be passed on to customers through more competitive pricing or reinvestment in research and development. These are precisely the merger-specific efficiencies, creating a formidable force for innovation, that procompetitive merger analysis should recognize. The Global Dimension The global competitive landscape, particularly the rise of foreign competitors like Huawei, adds another layer of strategic importance to this merger. When considering the broader enterprise networking market, which includes a diverse array of global players, a combined HPE-Juniper likely would create another robust and credible American firm. In an increasingly interconnected and competitive global economy, enhancing American competitiveness in key high-tech sectors is paramount. A stronger, more innovative HPE-Juniper entity would be better positioned to compete globally, not just domestically, thereby bolstering the U.S.'s strategic advantage in critical digital infrastructure. Fostering highly competitive domestic firms capable of driving technological advances and economic growth is particularly significant against a backdrop of intensifying international rivalry. Dismissing these potential gains risks unintended negative consequences for American leadership in a sector vital to national security and prosperity. DOJ Should Consider Withdrawing Its Complaint Applying narrow and economically dated approaches to merger analysis risks stifling the very innovation and economic growth that America needs. DOJ may wish to seriously weigh the EC's pragmatic stance in this case, based on a sophisticated assessment of competition in a dynamic and evolving high-tech market. Continuation of the DOJ case against the HPE-Juniper merger omits consideration of key economic realities. This merger promises not only significant efficiencies and product enhancements, but also the creation of a stronger American competitor poised to challenge market leader Cisco and contend more effectively in the global high-tech arena. A nuanced approach that prioritizes enhanced American competitiveness and innovation, rather than an outdated and simplistic focus centered on the number of market players, is essential for continued economic vitality in this critically important sector. More generally, the Trump Administration's commitment to an 'America First' agenda would be promoted by supporting mergers that enhance the global competitive strength of American firms in key high tech sectors without diminishing domestic competition. Opposing such mergers would seem to be at odds with America First. An interim Antitrust Division head approved the HPE-Juniper challenge a mere 10 days after the January presidential inauguration. Now that they have assumed their posts, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Division Gail Slater may want to consider these factors carefully in refining DOJ merger policy. (Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson may also wish to take note.) Such a consideration may warrant dropping the merger challenge to the HPE-Juniper merger prior to the July 9 trial date.


Bloomberg
31 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Compass Sues Zillow as Fight Over Home Listings Heats Up
Residential real estate brokerage Compass Inc. sued Zillow Group Inc., alleging that the home-search website is using 'anticompetitive tactics' with its plan to restrict certain listings. Compass alleges that Zillow 'has retaliated against competitive threats by enacting an exclusionary policy' by banning listings that have been publicly marketed elsewhere first, according to the lawsuit filed Monday in federal court in Manhattan.