• Home
  • About Us
  • Getting Finances Done
    • Hiring Advisors
    • Debt Management
    • Spending Plan
  • Insurance
    • Life Insurance
    • Health Insurance
    • Disability Insurance
    • Homeowners/Renters Insurance
  • Contact Us
  • Our Editorial Commitment

The Free Financial Advisor

You are here: Home / Archives for Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

HHS Plans Up to $1 Million Award to Expand Free Training for Foster, Adoptive and Kinship Families

September 3, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

foster parent training
HHS plans to award up to $1 million to continue expanding the National Training and Development Curriculum, a free program designed to prepare and support foster, adoptive and kinship caregivers. PeopleImages/Shutterstock

The federal government plans to award up to $1 million to continue expanding a free national training program designed to help foster, adoptive and kinship caregivers prepare for the challenges of caring for children who have experienced trauma, separation and loss. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through the Administration for Children and Families and Children’s Bureau, announced its intent to make a single-source cooperative agreement of up to $1 million to Spaulding for Children in Southfield, Michigan.

The proposed funding period will run from September 30, 2026, through September 29, 2027, according to a Federal Register notice published September 2. The money will support continued implementation and expansion of the National Training and Development Curriculum for Foster/Adoptive Parents, commonly known as NTDC.

What Is the National Training and Development Curriculum?

NTDC is a free, trauma-informed training curriculum that child welfare and adoption agencies can incorporate into preparation and ongoing education for foster, adoptive and kinship families.

The curriculum was developed with federal funding through a five-year cooperative agreement led by Spaulding for Children beginning in 2017. Its development incorporated research as well as input from experts, families with fostering and adoption experience, and former foster and adoptive youth. The program includes self-assessment, classroom-based training and what NTDC calls “Right-Time Training,” which gives caregivers access to additional educational resources when particular challenges arise.

The classroom portion currently includes 19 training themes totaling approximately 28 hours. Training topics are designed to help families better understand issues that can arise when parenting children who have experienced trauma, separation or loss while developing skills that can support children’s healthy development and family stability.

Why HHS Is Planning a Single-Source Award

The planned cooperative agreement differs from a typical competitive federal grant because HHS intends to award the funding directly to Spaulding for Children. According to the Federal Register notice, HHS determined that Spaulding is uniquely positioned to continue the work because the organization developed NTDC under the original Children’s Bureau cooperative agreement and owns and manages the curriculum.

Spaulding also hosts the NTDC materials and has experience helping child welfare systems implement the program.

Although the curriculum and resources were made publicly available at the end of the original project, HHS says agencies continue to need assistance implementing the training effectively. The new funding is intended to provide that support while allowing more states, tribes, territories and agencies to use NTDC.

The Training Is Free for Agencies and Families

One notable feature of NTDC is that the curriculum itself is available at no cost. Public and private child welfare and adoption agencies can access the materials without purchasing a commercial training program, and families can also access free online Right-Time Training courses.

Those courses can be completed using a phone, tablet, laptop or desktop computer and include videos, podcasts, activities and quizzes. Topics are designed to provide caregivers with information when they encounter particular situations or need additional support. The curriculum was originally piloted across several child welfare systems, including state, county, territorial and tribal sites, as well as a private agency serving families pursuing private domestic or intercountry adoption.

NTDC materials can also be adapted by agencies to address local training requirements and needs.

Why Caregiver Training Matters

Becoming a foster, adoptive or kinship caregiver can involve challenges that extend far beyond ordinary parenting preparation. Children entering foster care or joining adoptive families may have experienced trauma, loss, disrupted attachments or multiple changes in caregivers. Families may need specialized knowledge to understand behaviors, maintain children’s important connections and respond appropriately when challenges emerge.

HHS says effective and relevant training is critical for both prospective and current foster, adoptive and kinship caregivers. The federal agency also views caregiver preparation as part of developing and maintaining resource homes and supporting more stable placements for children.

Rather than creating a new training program, the proposed $1 million award is intended to keep an existing federally funded curriculum available while helping additional child welfare systems put it into practice.

Funding Could Continue Through September 2027

If the cooperative agreement proceeds as announced, Spaulding for Children could receive up to $1 million for work performed between September 30, 2026, and September 29, 2027. The funding is authorized through the federal Adoption Opportunities Program.

For foster, adoptive and kinship families, the immediate takeaway is that NTDC resources remain available free of charge. Families interested in the program can access its online training resources, while agencies can use the curriculum as part of their own caregiver preparation and continuing-education programs.

The new federal funding is primarily aimed at expanding implementation and providing the support agencies need to use those resources effectively, potentially bringing the curriculum to more caregivers and child welfare systems around the country.

What to Read Next

SEC Proposes Opening U.S. Futures Trading to European Union Debt

7 Refund Payments Consumers Could Receive From the FTC Right Now

You Paid the Credit Card Minimum on Time. So Why Is Your Balance Barely Moving?

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: ACF, adoption, Adoptive Parents, Child Welfare, Children's Bureau, Family Resources, federal grants, Foster Care, Foster Parents, HHS, Kinship Care, NTDC, parenting, Spaulding for Children

SEC Proposes Opening U.S. Futures Trading to European Union Debt

September 3, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

European Union debt futures
The SEC has proposed adding European Union debt obligations to a rule that could allow futures based on those securities to be marketed and traded in the United States under CFTC oversight. The underlying EU debt securities would remain subject to federal securities laws. motioncenter/Shutterstock

The Securities and Exchange Commission is proposing a regulatory change that could make it easier for U.S. market participants to trade futures contracts tied to debt issued by the European Union.

The SEC proposed an amendment to Exchange Act Rule 3a12-8 on August 28, with the proposal published in the Federal Register on September 2. If finalized, the change would designate European Union debt obligations as “exempted securities” for the limited purpose of marketing and trading futures contracts on those securities in the United States or to U.S. persons.

The proposal does not change the regulatory status of the underlying EU bonds themselves. Instead, it addresses how futures contracts based on those securities would be regulated.

SEC Wants EU Debt Futures Treated Like Those of Certain Member States

Under the current version of Rule 3a12-8, debt obligations issued by several foreign governments receive exempted-security status specifically for futures marketing and trading. That list already includes debt issued by several individual European Union member states. EU-level debt, however, isn’t currently included.

The SEC’s proposal would eliminate that difference by adding debt obligations issued by the European Union itself to Rule 3a12-8.

SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins described the current situation as a regulatory inconsistency, noting that debt from several EU member states is covered by the rule while debt issued by the EU itself is not. The Commission says the amendment would leave the rule’s other substantive requirements unchanged.

The CFTC Would Regulate the Futures Contracts

If the amendment is finalized and the applicable requirements are met, futures contracts on EU debt obligations traded in the United States or to U.S. persons would fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Those futures would therefore be regulated under the Commodity Exchange Act, consistent with the treatment already given to futures based on debt obligations from foreign governments currently included in Rule 3a12-8.

There is an important limitation to that change.

The SEC would not be giving up jurisdiction over the actual European Union debt securities underlying the contracts. Offerings of those securities would remain subject to federal securities laws. In other words, the proposal changes the regulatory treatment of futures based on EU debt, not EU debt securities generally.

Why the SEC Says the Change Could Matter

The Commission says adding EU debt to the rule could increase access to these futures products for U.S. market participants. Among the potential benefits identified by the SEC are improved opportunities for hedging, lower transaction costs, greater market depth, less operational friction and increased competition.

A futures contract can allow a market participant to gain or manage exposure to the future price of an asset without simply buying or selling the underlying security. In the government-debt market, futures can be used by sophisticated investors and financial institutions to manage risks associated with changes in bond prices and interest rates.

The proposal is therefore likely to be most relevant to institutional investors, derivatives dealers and other professional market participants rather than ordinary households looking for a new place to invest their savings. The SEC also notes that the amendment could bring the treatment of EU-level debt futures more closely in line with futures on debt issued by European governments already covered by the rule.

The Proposal Is Part of a Broader SEC-CFTC Harmonization Effort

The SEC has been working with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on a broader effort to reduce unnecessary differences between the agencies’ regulatory frameworks. That initiative has included work involving derivatives definitions, portfolio margining, market-data reporting and other areas where the responsibilities of the two regulators intersect.

The EU debt proposal is a comparatively narrow change, but the SEC describes it as another example of regulatory harmonization. Atkins said the existing difference between treatment of certain EU member-state debt and EU-issued debt creates the type of inconsistency that can produce confusion in financial markets. If adopted, the amendment would remove that particular distinction while retaining the SEC’s authority over the underlying securities.

The Public Has Until November 2 to Comment

The proposal was published in the Federal Register on September 2, beginning a public comment period that runs through November 2, 2026.

The proposal is identified as File No. S7-2026-29 and Release No. 34-106225. Interested parties can submit comments through the SEC’s online comment system or by email, with File No. S7-2026-29 included in the subject line. Paper comments may also be mailed to the SEC’s Secretary at 100 F Street NE, Washington, D.C. 20549-1090.

The SEC warns commenters that submissions are posted publicly, so individuals should not include information they don’t want made publicly available. For now, the regulatory change remains a proposal. U.S. market participants interested in futures tied to European Union debt will need to watch the rulemaking process to see whether the SEC ultimately adopts the amendment and whether the final version differs from the proposal.

What to Read Next

10 States Where Homeowners Are Falling Furthest Behind on Their Mortgages

You Paid the Credit Card Minimum on Time. So Why Is Your Balance Barely Moving?

7 Refund Payments Consumers Could Receive From the FTC Right Now

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: bonds, CFTC, derivatives, EU Debt, European Union, Federal Regulations, financial markets, futures trading, Institutional Investors, interest rates, investing, SEC, Securities

FDIC Changes Reciprocal Deposit Rules for Banks Under New Housing Law

September 2, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

FDIC reciprocal deposit rules
The FDIC’s new reciprocal-deposit rule took effect September 1, 2026, increasing the amount qualifying banks can exclude from brokered-deposit treatment under a tiered calculation capped at $30 billion. The rule also expands which well-capitalized institutions can qualify for the exception. nmoyPhoto/Shutterstock

Banks participating in reciprocal deposit networks have new federal rules to follow after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation implemented changes Congress made to how certain deposits are treated under banking regulations. The FDIC’s interim final rule took effect September 1 and implements Section 902 of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which became law on July 11, 2026. The change primarily affects banks and their compliance teams rather than requiring customers to take immediate action. However, reciprocal deposits are an important tool that some banks use to help customers obtain FDIC insurance coverage for deposits exceeding the standard insurance limit at a single institution.

What Are Reciprocal Deposits?

A reciprocal deposit arrangement can allow a customer to place a large amount of money with one participating bank while portions of those funds are placed at other participating insured institutions. In return, the original bank receives deposits placed through the network by other institutions.

The arrangement can allow a customer to maintain a relationship with one bank while potentially receiving FDIC insurance coverage across multiple institutions, subject to applicable insurance rules and program terms. That’s particularly useful for businesses, municipalities and individuals holding deposits that exceed the standard FDIC insurance limit. The regulatory question for banks is whether those reciprocal deposits must be classified as “brokered deposits.” Federal law places additional restrictions and regulatory requirements on brokered deposits, particularly when an institution’s financial condition deteriorates.

The New Law Raises the Reciprocal Deposit Cap

Congress changed the reciprocal-deposit framework when the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act became law this summer. Under the new law and the FDIC’s implementing rule, qualifying “agent institutions” can exclude a larger amount of reciprocal deposits from being classified as brokered deposits. The new general cap uses a tiered calculation based on an institution’s total liabilities.

For the first $1 billion in liabilities, the calculation uses 50%. For liabilities above $1 billion and up to $10 billion, it adds 40% of that portion. For liabilities exceeding $10 billion, it adds 30% of that portion. The resulting general cap cannot exceed $30 billion.

That replaces the previous framework under which the general cap was generally the lesser of $5 billion or 20% of the institution’s total liabilities.

More Banks May Qualify as “Agent Institutions”

The rule also changes which banks can qualify for the reciprocal-deposit exception. Previously, an institution generally needed to be well capitalized and have a composite condition rating of 1 or 2 under the applicable supervisory rating system, among other potential ways to qualify.

The new law expands the definition to include institutions that are well capitalized and have a composite rating of 3. That change could allow additional institutions to make use of the reciprocal-deposit exception.

The FDIC’s rule also clarifies how institutions can requalify as agent institutions after circumstances change, such as a supervisory rating change, capital-category change, approval of a brokered-deposit waiver or reduction in reciprocal deposits below the applicable special cap.

What Does This Mean for Bank Customers?

For most consumers with ordinary checking and savings balances, the rule doesn’t require any immediate action. Its more direct impact is on financial institutions that participate in reciprocal-deposit networks and on customers with larger balances who use those services. Reciprocal-deposit networks can allow banks to retain relationships with customers whose deposits exceed the standard FDIC insurance limit by placing portions of the money with other participating insured institutions.

Customers shouldn’t assume, however, that simply participating in a reciprocal-deposit program automatically makes every dollar in every situation FDIC-insured. Deposit insurance depends on factors including account ownership category, how funds are placed and the institutions where deposits ultimately reside. Customers with large balances should review their specific arrangement and deposit-insurance coverage with their bank.

The FDIC Is Still Accepting Comments

Although the rule took effect September 1, it is an interim final rule, and the FDIC is requesting public comments. Comments must be received by October 1, 2026. The Federal Register notice says comments should reference RIN 3064-AG32 and can be submitted through the FDIC’s Federal Register publications page, by email or by mail.

The FDIC also says it will work with the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council to update bank Call Report instructions to reflect the statutory and regulatory changes.

For financial institutions using reciprocal-deposit networks, the September rule means compliance procedures and deposit classifications may need to be revisited. For ordinary depositors, the more important takeaway is understanding why these networks exist in the first place: they can allow qualifying customers to spread large deposits among multiple insured banks while continuing to work primarily through one institution.

What to Read Next

FDIC Publishes 2026 Risk Review Covering Funding, Interest Rate, and Credit Risks Facing Banks

7 FDIC Coverage Rules Couples Should Recheck Before Opening Trust or Joint Accounts

How Many CDs Can You Have at One Bank? What FDIC Rules Actually Allow

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, banking, banking regulations, Banks, Brokered Deposits, Community Banks, deposit insurance, FDIC, FDIC insurance, Reciprocal Deposits, savings accounts

IRS Proposes New Investment Rules for Trump Accounts: What Parents Need to Know

September 1, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

Trump Account investment rules
The IRS and Treasury Department proposed new rules on August 20 governing investments in Trump Accounts for children. During the accounts’ growth period, funds generally would be limited to qualifying low-cost mutual funds and ETFs that track indexes made up primarily of U.S. companies. fizkes/Shutterstock

The IRS has proposed new rules governing how money in Trump Accounts for children can be invested, including strict limits on fund fees, leverage and the types of stock indexes the investments can track.

The Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service issued the proposed regulations on August 20 as part of the ongoing rollout of Trump Accounts, a new type of traditional individual retirement account created for eligible children under the Working Families Tax Cuts.

During a child’s account “growth period,” families won’t have unlimited freedom to choose stocks, cryptocurrencies or other investments. Instead, money generally must remain in qualifying low-cost mutual funds or exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, that meet federal requirements.

The IRS says the restrictions are designed to encourage investment in low-fee funds that can potentially compound over many years.

What Investments Would Be Allowed in a Trump Account?

Under the proposed rules, an eligible investment generally must be a mutual fund or ETF that tracks an equity index composed primarily of U.S. companies.

The IRS points to an index such as the S&P 500 as an example.

The fund also cannot use leverage and generally cannot charge annual fees and expenses exceeding 0.1% of the amount invested in the fund.

That fee limit is equivalent to no more than about $1 annually for every $1,000 invested, although the actual dollar amount would change as the account balance changes.

The rules therefore steer Trump Accounts during childhood toward relatively low-cost, index-based investments rather than allowing families to select virtually any security they want.

What Happens If Parents Don’t Choose an Investment?

Families also won’t necessarily have to select a fund themselves.

According to the IRS announcement on the proposed investment regulations, if the beneficiary doesn’t select an eligible investment from the choices offered by the account trustee, the money will automatically be placed in an eligible investment selected by that trustee during the growth period.

The proposed regulations include procedures trustees would use to determine whether an investment meets the government’s requirements and to ensure Trump Account money remains invested appropriately.

Those restrictions don’t last forever.

The growth period begins when the beneficiary’s initial Trump Account is established and ends on December 31 of the calendar year in which the beneficiary turns 17. After that period ends, the special eligible-investment restrictions no longer apply, and most traditional IRA rules generally take over.

Some Children Can Receive a $1,000 Federal Contribution

A separate pilot program provides a one-time $1,000 Treasury contribution for certain children.

The IRS guidance on the Trump Account pilot program says an eligible child must be a U.S. citizen with a valid Social Security number who was born in 2025, 2026, 2027 or 2028, and an election must be made for the child.

Parents and other qualifying individuals can make the election using Form 4547, Trump Account Election(s).

The August IRS announcement says parents, guardians and other authorized individuals can use the IRS Individual Online Account to complete Form 4547 for a child with a Social Security number, provided the election is made before the calendar year in which the child turns 18.

For an eligible child born during the pilot-program years, the person making the election can check the applicable box on Form 4547 to request the $1,000 contribution.

Families Can Put Additional Money Into the Account

The $1,000 pilot contribution isn’t necessarily the only money that can go into a Trump Account.

IRS guidance says ordinary contributions from sources such as family members and friends generally count toward a $5,000 annual contribution limit during the growth period, with that limit subject to cost-of-living adjustments after 2027.

The $1,000 federal pilot contribution doesn’t count against that $5,000 limit.

Certain other types of contributions receive different treatment as well. For example, the IRS issued separate proposed regulations in August covering employers that choose to contribute to Trump Accounts for employees or their dependents.

The IRS employer-contribution guidance says qualifying employer contributions can be as much as $2,500 annually during the growth period, subject to the applicable rules and limits.

Parents Should Understand the Withdrawal Restrictions

Families should also understand that a Trump Account isn’t designed to function like an ordinary savings account for childhood expenses.

During the growth period, distributions generally aren’t allowed except for limited circumstances identified by the IRS, including certain rollovers, qualified rollovers to an ABLE account at age 17, distributions of excess contributions and distributions following the beneficiary’s death.

After the growth period, most traditional IRA rules generally apply.

That means distributions can potentially be subject to the 10% additional tax on early withdrawals unless an exception applies. IRS guidance identifies qualified higher-education expenses and certain first-home purchases as examples of situations in which an exception may be available.

Parents considering the account should therefore distinguish between money they want to invest for the child’s longer-term future and money they may need for ordinary expenses while the child is still growing up.

The Investment Rules Aren’t Final Yet

The August 20 regulations are proposed, which means the details aren’t being presented as final regulations yet.

Treasury and the IRS developed the proposal after considering stakeholder comments submitted in response to Notice 2025-68, which was issued in December 2025.

The agencies are now requesting another round of public feedback.

Comments on the proposed eligible-investment regulations are due by October 20, 2026, with submission instructions contained in the proposed regulations.

The IRS says the regulations generally are proposed to apply to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2026.

For families considering a Trump Account, the proposal provides a clearer picture of how the accounts are intended to operate during childhood: money generally would be directed into low-cost, primarily U.S. stock-index mutual funds or ETFs, while access to the funds would remain restricted until the special childhood growth period ends.

What to Read Next

IRS Is Shutting Down the FIRE Filing System Nov. 19 — What Businesses Need to Do Before 2027

What Would Break Your Retirement Plan First?

IRS Keeps Interest Rate at 7% for Taxpayers Who Owe Money in Late 2026

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: Child Savings, etfs, family finances, Investing for Children, IRS, mutual funds, retirement accounts, S&P 500, Tax-Deferred Savings, taxes, Treasury Department, Trump Accounts

Walmart Agrees to Pay $50 Million Over Allegations Its Pharmacies Filled Invalid Opioid Prescriptions

August 31, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

Walmart opioid settlement
Walmart has agreed to pay $50 million to resolve Justice Department allegations that its pharmacies filled thousands of invalid prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances. The settlement also requires new monitoring and reporting safeguards, and DOJ says the resolved claims are allegations only with no determination of liability. QualityHD/Shutterstock

Walmart has agreed to pay $50 million to resolve federal allegations that its pharmacies illegally filled thousands of invalid prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances, ending a major federal case that dates back nearly six years.

The Justice Department and Drug Enforcement Administration announced the settlement on August 28. The government had accused Walmart of violating the Controlled Substances Act through actions involving both individual pharmacists and members of the retailer’s corporate compliance team.

The settlement doesn’t include a determination that Walmart is liable for the alleged conduct. Walmart told Reuters that it was pleased to resolve the matter and said it would continue supporting its pharmacists and their work providing patient care.

DOJ Says Walmart Filled Prescriptions Despite Warning Signs

The government’s complaint was originally filed on December 22, 2020, and amended in 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

According to the Justice Department’s settlement announcement, the government alleged that Walmart had filled invalid prescriptions since June 26, 2013, through the knowing actions of individuals on its corporate compliance team and pharmacists working in its stores.

Federal officials alleged that members of Walmart’s compliance team knew certain prescribers were operating as “pill mills” but that invalid prescriptions written by those prescribers were filled anyway.

Walmart’s own pharmacists had raised concerns about problematic prescribers through thousands of internal “refusal-to-fill” forms, according to DOJ.

The government cited an internal email in which a compliance-team director said that rather than devoting additional effort to analyzing refusal-to-fill information, “[d]riving sales and patient awareness” was a better use of certain employees’ time.

Pharmacists Allegedly Encountered Red Flags

The government’s allegations weren’t limited to the actions of Walmart’s corporate compliance operation.

DOJ also alleged that Walmart pharmacists filled controlled-substance prescriptions they personally knew were invalid.

Federal officials said some prescriptions came from prescribers known as “pill mills,” while others presented warning signs that should have raised concerns about whether they were being issued for a legitimate medical purpose.

Those alleged red flags included dangerous combinations of opioids, combinations or “cocktails” involving opioids and non-opioid medications, repeated fills of high-dose and frequently abused opioids, and repeated requests to fill frequently abused controlled substances early.

The DEA said pharmacies have a responsibility to identify and prevent unlawful dispensing because illegitimate opioid prescriptions can put patients and communities at risk and undermine safeguards designed to prevent misuse and diversion.

Walmart Must Pay $50 Million and Adopt New Safeguards

The settlement requires Walmart to pay $50 million to resolve the federal allegations.

The retailer has also entered into a memorandum of agreement with the DEA establishing future requirements for how its pharmacies handle controlled substances.

Among those requirements, Walmart must establish a hotline that employees and patients can use to report suspected illegal dispensing of controlled substances.

The company must also proactively monitor dispensing patterns across its pharmacies to identify and address potentially illegal activity and establish a process for evaluating prescribers suspected of illegal prescribing.

DEA Assistant Administrator Cheri Oz said the agreement establishes compliance obligations intended to strengthen safeguards and help prevent similar problems in the future.

The Federal Case Had Previously Been Narrowed

The $50 million agreement resolves litigation that had been underway since 2020, although the government’s original case was broader than the claims ultimately remaining before the settlement.

In March 2024, a federal judge narrowed the lawsuit, dismissing claims involving Walmart’s alleged failure to report suspicious prescriptions to the DEA and pharmacists’ alleged failure to document certain prescription red flags.

The court allowed other claims to continue, including allegations that pharmacists dispensed prescriptions that Walmart compliance personnel knew were invalid and that pharmacists themselves knowingly dispensed invalid prescriptions.

Walmart did not admit liability as part of the $50 million resolution.

In a statement reported by Reuters after the settlement was announced, Walmart said it was pleased to resolve the matter and would continue supporting the work its pharmacists perform for patients.

The Settlement Ends the Case Without a Finding of Liability

The federal government characterized the agreement as part of its broader enforcement of laws governing pharmacies that dispense opioids and other controlled substances.

The case involved attorneys from the Justice Department’s Civil Division as well as U.S. Attorneys’ Offices in Delaware, North Carolina, Florida and New York.

For consumers, the settlement doesn’t mean that every opioid or controlled-substance prescription filled at a Walmart pharmacy was improper. The government’s allegations concerned specific dispensing and compliance practices over a period beginning in 2013.

The Justice Department also emphasizes an important legal distinction: the claims resolved by the settlement remain allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

Going forward, the most visible consumer-facing change required by the agreement may be the new reporting hotline, which will allow both Walmart employees and patients to report suspected illegal dispensing of controlled substances.

What to Read Next

Should You Pay Off a 0% Credit Card Before the Promotional Rate Ends?

You Can Afford the Car Payment. Can You Afford the Car?

Your Credit Card Has a $30,000 Limit. How Much Should You Actually Be Willing to Spend?

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: consumer safety, Controlled Substances, DEA, Department of Justice, healthcare, Opioid Prescriptions, Opioids, Pharmacy, prescription drugs, Walmart, Walmart Pharmacy

IRS Is Shutting Down the FIRE Filing System Nov. 19 — What Businesses Need to Do Before 2027

August 31, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

IRS FIRE system retirement
The IRS will stop accepting information returns through its FIRE system on November 19, 2026, at 3 p.m. ET. Current FIRE users will need a separate IRIS Transmitter Control Code to electronically file tax year 2026 information returns during the 2027 filing season. A9 STUDIO/Shutterstock

The IRS is warning businesses, tax professionals and other information-return filers that its long-running FIRE electronic filing system is approaching its final shutdown, with the last opportunity to submit information returns through the platform coming in November 2026.

Beginning with the 2027 filing season, filers who previously used the Filing Information Returns Electronically system, commonly known as FIRE, will need to transition to the newer Information Returns Intake System, or IRIS, to electronically file tax year 2026 information returns.

The IRS announced the latest transition details in an August 24 reminder and is encouraging current FIRE users to prepare before the shutdown rather than waiting until filing deadlines approach.

The Final FIRE Filing Deadline Is November 19

The IRS has established several important dates for current FIRE users. November 1, 2026, is the last day filers can submit test information returns through the FIRE Trading Partner Test System. November 9 is the final day to make changes to existing Information Returns Applications for Transmitter Control Codes, or TCCs.

Most importantly, November 19, 2026, at 3 p.m. Eastern Time is the last day information returns can be filed through FIRE. After the November maintenance window, the system will no longer accept information-return submissions. Beginning after January 1, 2027, IRIS will be the IRS’s only electronic filing system for information returns previously handled by FIRE, including current-year returns, prior-year returns and corrections.

Current FIRE Users Need a New IRIS TCC

Filers shouldn’t assume their existing FIRE credentials will automatically carry over to IRIS. The IRS says current FIRE users must complete an IRIS Application for Transmitter Control Code before filing through the new platform. Transmitter Control Codes aren’t interchangeable between the different IRS intake systems, meaning a FIRE TCC can’t simply be used to submit returns through IRIS.

That’s one reason the IRS is encouraging businesses, tax professionals and other affected filers to begin the transition now. The change is particularly important for organizations that electronically submit large volumes of information returns, including many forms in the 1099 series.

Employers should note that W-2 series forms follow a different process and are filed electronically with the Social Security Administration rather than through FIRE or IRIS. Other specialized information returns can also use different filing systems, so filers should verify which IRS or federal platform applies to the specific forms they submit.

IRIS Offers Two Ways to Submit Information Returns

IRIS isn’t entirely new. The IRS introduced the system in 2023 and has gradually expanded it as part of the transition away from FIRE.

The first filing option is the IRIS Taxpayer Portal, a free web-based system that allows users to electronically file up to 100 returns at a time. Filers can manually enter information or upload it through a CSV file, download copies for recipients and maintain records of completed and submitted forms.

For businesses, payroll processors, tax professionals and other filers handling larger volumes, the IRS also offers IRIS Application to Application, commonly called A2A.

That option allows filers using third-party software—or organizations that develop their own software—to transmit larger volumes of information returns directly through IRIS.

Beginning in 2027, the IRS says all forms previously supported through FIRE will be available through IRIS.

Waiting Until Filing Season Could Create Problems

The transition matters because tax year 2026 information returns will generally be filed during the 2027 filing season, when FIRE will no longer be available as a fallback.

A business or tax professional who discovers in January that an existing FIRE TCC doesn’t work with IRIS could therefore face unnecessary delays while trying to complete the new registration and filing process.

The IRS recommends that current FIRE users complete their IRIS TCC application, review available IRIS filing guidance and begin preparing for the transition before FIRE shuts down.

Filers can also subscribe to IRIS QuickAlerts for information about system changes and maintenance. The IRS holds IRIS Working Group meetings on the second Wednesday of each month, although participants must register each month to receive the meeting link.

The agency says it will continue providing transition information through those working groups, QuickAlerts and IRS.gov as the final FIRE shutdown approaches.

For businesses and tax professionals that still rely on FIRE, the key takeaway is simple: November 19 at 3 p.m. ET is the end of the road for FIRE submissions, and an existing FIRE TCC isn’t enough to start filing through IRIS in 2027. Preparing the new IRIS access now could prevent a last-minute filing problem when tax season arrives.

What to Read Next

IRS Keeps Interest Rate at 7% for Taxpayers Who Owe Money in Late 2026

Your Financial Advisor Wants You to Roll Over Your 401(k) – Ask These 7 Questions First

IRS Proposes New Restrictions on Refundable Tax Credits for Some Immigrants

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: 1099 forms, 2027 Tax Season, business taxes, FIRE System, Information Returns, IRIS, IRS, Small business, tax filing, Tax Professionals, taxes

FTC Finalizes $930,000 Settlement Over ‘Active Listening’ AI Ad Service That Allegedly Didn’t Work as Advertised

August 28, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

FTC Cox Media Group settlement
The FTC says an “Active Listening” advertising service marketed as using AI and conversations captured near smart devices did not actually use voice data and allegedly failed to provide the geographic targeting customers were promised. Laktikov Artem/Shutterstock

The Federal Trade Commission has finalized orders requiring Cox Media Group and two marketing firms to pay a combined $930,000 to settle allegations that they misled customers about an AI-powered advertising service promoted as being able to target consumers based on conversations picked up by smart devices.

The FTC announced final approval of the orders on August 27 after considering public comments on settlements first proposed in May. The companies are Georgia-based CMG Media Corporation, which does business as Cox Media Group; New Hampshire-based MindSift LLC; and Wisconsin-based 1010 Digital Works LLC.

FTC Says the ‘Active Listening’ Service Didn’t Work as Advertised

At the center of the cases was a marketing product branded as “Active Listening.”

According to the Federal Trade Commission, the companies claimed the service could use a special algorithm to identify relevant conversations taking place near consumers’ smart devices and then help small businesses target advertisements to potential customers in specific geographic areas.

The FTC alleged that those claims weren’t true.

The service didn’t collect or use consumers’ voice data, according to the agency, and the FTC also alleged that it didn’t accurately target advertisements to the geographic areas customers had paid to reach. Instead, the original FTC complaints alleged that the service involved reselling email lists obtained from other data brokers at a significant markup.

That distinction is important because businesses purchasing the service weren’t simply buying an advertising campaign that underperformed. The FTC alleged they were being given a fundamentally different service from the sophisticated voice- and AI-based targeting capability that had been marketed to them.

Consumers Hadn’t Opted Into the Voice Targeting Either, FTC Says

The FTC also challenged claims about consumer consent.

According to the agency, the companies represented that consumers had opted into having voice data used for the Active Listening service. The FTC alleged no such voice-data collection was actually taking place and that consumers had not provided the claimed consent.

The original complaints said the companies relied on consumers accepting terms of service when downloading and using apps as the basis for saying people had “opted in.” The FTC rejected that reasoning, saying acceptance of mandatory app terms did not constitute opt-in consent for an invasive service involving voice data from inside people’s homes.

The agency added that if Active Listening had actually collected and used voice data without adequate consent as advertised, the practice itself would have violated Section 5 of the FTC Act.

Cox Media Group Will Pay Most of the $930,000

Under the finalized orders, Cox Media Group must pay $880,000. MindSift and 1010 Digital Works must each pay $25,000, bringing the combined total to $930,000.

The FTC says the money will be used to provide redress to Cox Media Group customers affected by the practices.

The orders also restrict what the three companies can claim going forward. They are prohibited from misrepresenting the qualities or features of advertising and marketing services, the collection or use of voice data, whether consumers have consented to collection or disclosure of voice data, and the geographic-targeting capabilities of their services.

The Commission voted 2-0 to finalize the consent agreements after receiving two public comments on the proposed settlements.

The Case Is Also a Warning About AI Marketing Claims

The settlement has implications beyond these three companies because businesses are increasingly being asked to pay for advertising and other services marketed with AI-powered capabilities.

For small businesses buying digital advertising, the case is a reminder to ask vendors what data actually powers a targeting product, where that data comes from, how geographic targeting is verified and what evidence supports claims involving artificial intelligence.

The case also illustrates why claims involving sensitive consumer information deserve additional scrutiny. In this instance, the FTC says the advertised voice surveillance wasn’t actually occurring—but the agency made clear that collecting and using consumers’ conversations without adequate consent would have presented a separate legal problem.

The final orders resolve the FTC’s allegations against the companies and carry legal requirements governing their future conduct. As with other FTC consent matters, the allegations should not be characterized as independent judicial findings that every allegation was proven at trial.

What to Read Next

Florida Health System Agrees to $541.5 Million Settlement Over Medicare Advantage Diagnosis Codes

FTC Raises National Do Not Call Registry Access Fees for Telemarketers Starting October 1

Federal Agencies Withdraw 2022 Guidance on Special Credit Programs — What Borrowers Should Know

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: AI, artificial intelligence, consumer privacy, Consumer Protection, Cox Media Group, data privacy, Digital Advertising, FTC', Online Advertising, Small business

FTC Raises National Do Not Call Registry Access Fees for Telemarketers Starting October 1

August 27, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

Do Not Call Registry fees
</strong> The FTC is increasing the fees certain telemarketers and sellers pay to access National Do Not Call Registry data beginning October 1, 2026. Consumers can still register their own phone numbers for free. Ruslan Huzau/Shutterstock

Businesses that make telemarketing calls will soon pay slightly more to access the federal database designed to protect consumers from unwanted sales calls. The Federal Trade Commission announced new fiscal year 2027 fees for accessing the National Do Not Call Registry, with the changes taking effect October 1, 2026. The increase affects businesses and other organizations that pay to access phone-number data by area code, not consumers who register their numbers.

For consumers, the announcement is also a useful reminder of how the Do Not Call Registry actually works — and what registering a number can and cannot stop.

What Telemarketers Will Pay Starting October 1

The annual fee for accessing National Do Not Call Registry data will increase from $82 to $85 per area code for fiscal year 2027. Businesses adding area codes during the second half of their annual subscription period will pay $43 per additional area code, up from $41.

The maximum annual charge for a single entity will increase from $22,626 to $23,425.

Not every business accessing the database necessarily pays for every area code. Under the FTC’s current system, organizations can access data for up to five area codes for free, while qualifying exempt organizations do not pay access fees.

Why the FTC Is Raising the Fees

The adjustment isn’t simply a discretionary price increase by the agency. Federal law requires the FTC to periodically adjust National Do Not Call Registry access fees based on changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.

According to the agency, the CPI increased enough since the previous adjustment to trigger another fee increase for fiscal year 2027. The calculations ultimately resulted in the $85 per-area-code fee and $23,425 maximum charge.

Because the adjustment is required by statute and involves applying a prescribed inflation calculation, the agency treated the change as a technical amendment rather than going through the usual public notice-and-comment process.

Businesses Have to Check Numbers Against the Registry

The National Do Not Call Registry isn’t simply a list that consumers add their phone numbers to and then forget about. It also creates compliance obligations for many businesses engaged in telemarketing.

Sellers generally must access the portions of the Registry covering the area codes where they plan to make calls and pay the required access fees. Telemarketers working for sellers also need to make sure their clients have properly accessed the Registry before placing covered calls.

The FTC’s guidance warns that sellers or telemarketers can face legal consequences for making calls without obtaining required Registry access, even in some circumstances when the particular number called isn’t itself on the Registry.

The Fee Increase Doesn’t Mean Consumers Have to Pay

Consumers should not confuse the new fees with a charge for putting their own phone number on the Do Not Call Registry. Registration remains free for consumers.

That distinction could also help people recognize a potential scam. Someone who contacts a consumer claiming a payment is required to put a number on the federal Do Not Call Registry should not be trusted simply because the FTC recently announced a fee increase.

The fees taking effect October 1 apply to businesses and other organizations obtaining access to Registry data for telemarketing compliance — not people registering their personal phone numbers.

Being on the Registry Won’t Stop Every Unwanted Call

Consumers should also understand that registration doesn’t create a universal block against every unwanted phone call.

Certain calls aren’t covered by the National Do Not Call Registry’s restrictions, and scammers who are already willing to break the law may simply ignore the Registry altogether. That is why someone can legitimately register a phone number and still receive illegal robocalls or scam calls afterward.

For legitimate sellers and telemarketers subject to the Telemarketing Sales Rule, however, checking numbers against the Registry remains an important compliance requirement. The new fiscal year 2027 fees change how much qualifying businesses pay for that access, rather than changing the basic purpose of the consumer protection program.

What Changes on October 1, 2026

For consumers, very little changes directly on October 1: registering a phone number with the National Do Not Call Registry remains free. For telemarketers and sellers that must pay for Registry data, the cost rises to $85 per area code beyond applicable free access, while the maximum annual fee climbs to $23,425.

Businesses affected by the change should review the FTC’s current requirements rather than relying on previous-year fee information. Consumers, meanwhile, can continue using the Registry as one tool for limiting legitimate telemarketing calls — while remembering that registration alone can’t prevent criminals from placing illegal scam calls.

Are you registered with the National Do Not Call Registry, and have you noticed any difference in the number of unwanted calls you receive? Share your experience in the comments.

What to Read Next

Florida Health System Agrees to $541.5 Million Settlement Over Medicare Advantage Diagnosis Codes

At 55, Should You Still Be Investing Like You’re 35?

At What Point Does Saving More for Retirement Stop Improving Your Life?

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: Consumer Protection, Do Not Call, Do Not Call Registry, Federal Trade Commission, FTC', phone scams, robocalls, scam calls, Telemarketing, Telemarketing Sales Rule

Florida Health System Agrees to $541.5 Million Settlement Over Medicare Advantage Diagnosis Codes

August 27, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

Medicare Advantage diagnosis codes
A $541.5 million federal settlement involving The Villages Health System highlights how diagnosis codes can affect Medicare Advantage payments. The Justice Department says the settlement resolves allegations and does not constitute a determination of liability. Anatoliy Cherkas/Shutterstock

A Florida healthcare provider has agreed to a massive $541.5 million settlement with the federal government over allegations that unsupported diagnosis codes helped drive up Medicare Advantage payments.

The Villages Health System LLC (TVH), headquartered in The Villages, Florida, agreed to resolve False Claims Act allegations involving diagnosis codes submitted between 2020 and 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice announced August 26.

The case involves a part of Medicare Advantage that most beneficiaries rarely see: the system used to adjust how much the federal government pays private insurers based partly on the health conditions of their members.

Importantly, the settlement resolves allegations, and the Justice Department said there has been no determination of liability.

Why Diagnosis Codes Can Change Medicare Advantage Payments

Medicare Advantage, also known as Medicare Part C, allows beneficiaries to receive Medicare coverage through private insurance plans rather than Original Medicare.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services pays Medicare Advantage Organizations, or MAOs, a monthly amount for each enrolled beneficiary. Those payments are adjusted for factors affecting expected healthcare costs, with plans generally receiving more money for beneficiaries expected to have greater medical needs. Medical diagnosis codes play a significant role in those calculations.

According to DOJ, diagnoses used for these risk adjustments must be supported by medical records from qualifying patient-provider encounters. For outpatient care, the diagnoses also must have required or affected the patient’s care, treatment, or management during the visit.

That creates an important safeguard: a diagnosis submitted for payment purposes isn’t supposed to exist merely as a code on a patient’s chart. It must meet Medicare’s requirements.

What the Government Alleged The Villages Health Did

Federal officials alleged that from 2020 through 2024, TVH knowingly submitted false diagnosis codes to several Medicare Advantage insurers.

According to DOJ, some of the diagnoses did not have adequate support in patients’ medical records. Others allegedly relied on amendments that weren’t initiated by the treating provider, weren’t made in a timely manner, or weren’t approved by that provider.

The government alleges those codes were then submitted by the Medicare Advantage insurers to CMS, resulting in inflated federal payments. TVH’s payments were also allegedly increased as a result.

The Medicare Advantage organizations involved were Humana, several UnitedHealthcare entities, and GuideWell companies including Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida and Florida Blue Medicare.

The Health System Reported the Problem Itself

There is an unusual and important detail in this case: TVH disclosed the coding issue to the government.

On December 27, 2024, the organization made a submission through the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General’s Health Care Fraud Self-Disclosure Protocol. TVH disclosed that it had submitted invalid diagnosis codes for certain Medicare Advantage beneficiaries and that those codes had increased CMS payments to insurers.

DOJ said TVH subsequently took remedial action, provided the government with a detailed written disclosure, and cooperated with investigators.

Those actions mattered when the settlement was negotiated.

Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate said the resolution demonstrates that the government will pursue organizations accused of inflating Medicare payments while also giving credit to organizations that self-disclose problems, take corrective action and cooperate with investigations.

Acting Deputy Inspector General for Investigations Miranda L. Bennett similarly said TVH’s use of the self-disclosure process and its cooperation were important factors in resolving the matter.

What Happens to the Medicare Advantage Overpayments?

The settlement isn’t limited to TVH.

DOJ said the Medicare Advantage insurers that received payments connected to the invalid diagnosis codes are returning overpayments to the federal government.

Depending on the insurer, that is occurring through deletion of invalid diagnosis codes and/or agreements with DOJ and CMS to return money.

That distinction is important because CMS initially paid the Medicare Advantage organizations. TVH allegedly benefited because provider groups can have arrangements under which their compensation is tied to some portion of the Medicare Advantage payments insurers receive.

In other words, the coding at issue could affect payments at multiple points in the Medicare Advantage system.

The Settlement Comes During TVH’s Bankruptcy Case

The resolution also comes against the backdrop of a major financial restructuring.

TVH filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on July 3, 2025, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida. The bankruptcy court approved the federal settlement on August 25, 2026, one day before DOJ publicly announced it.

Bankruptcy court records also show orders approving settlement agreements involving the United States, Florida Blue and UnitedHealthcare on August 25.

The $541.5 million settlement therefore represents part of a much broader financial situation surrounding the healthcare organization.

What This Means for Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries

For beneficiaries, the announcement does not mean that everyone treated by TVH received an incorrect medical diagnosis, nor does it mean Medicare Advantage members need to repay the $541.5 million themselves.

The government’s allegations concern diagnosis codes used in Medicare Advantage risk-adjustment payments.

However, patients should generally review their medical records and Medicare information and raise questions when they see diagnoses, services or claims they don’t recognize. Accurate health records matter beyond billing because medical information can influence future treatment and communication among healthcare providers.

Anyone who suspects Medicare fraud can report concerns to HHS-OIG. DOJ notes that reports of potential healthcare fraud, waste or abuse can be submitted through the inspector general or by calling 800-HHS-TIPS (800-447-8477).

A $541.5 Million Reminder That Medical Coding Has Real Financial Consequences

A diagnosis code can look like a small administrative detail, but Medicare Advantage’s risk-adjustment system can attach substantial financial consequences to the medical conditions reported for beneficiaries.

The Villages Health System settlement demonstrates the scale those consequences can reach when federal officials allege that unsupported diagnoses have influenced payments over several years.

At the same time, TVH’s voluntary disclosure is an important part of the story. Federal officials specifically credited the organization for reporting the issue, taking remedial measures and cooperating with the investigation.

The case ultimately resolves allegations involving hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicare Advantage payments, but DOJ emphasizes that the settlement is not a judicial determination that TVH was liable for the alleged conduct.

Have you ever found a diagnosis or medical service in your health records that you didn’t recognize? Share your experience in the comments.

What to Read Next

At 55, Should You Still Be Investing Like You’re 35?

At What Point Does Saving More for Retirement Stop Improving Your Life?

Your Advisor Recommends an Annuity. Ask These Questions Before You Say Yes.

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: CMS, DOJ, False Claims Act, Florida, healthcare, medical billing, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare fraud, The Villages Health System

Federal Agencies Withdraw 2022 Guidance on Special Credit Programs — What Borrowers Should Know

August 26, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

special purpose credit programs
Federal regulators have withdrawn 2022 guidance that encouraged lenders to use special purpose credit programs to expand access to credit. The change does not eliminate all SPCPs, but lenders can no longer rely on the rescinded interagency statement when structuring their programs. Shakirov Albert/Shutterstock

Seven federal agencies have withdrawn a 2022 policy statement that encouraged banks and other creditors to use special purpose credit programs to expand access to financing for underserved groups. The rescission took effect August 25, 2026, and affects guidance involving the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, commonly called ECOA, and its implementing rule, Regulation B.

The change does not eliminate special purpose credit programs altogether. Instead, it removes the agencies’ 2022 interagency statement and comes after a separate 2026 change to Regulation B that narrowed how certain characteristics can be used in these programs.

For consumers, particularly borrowers who have encountered down-payment assistance, mortgage programs, or other lending initiatives aimed at economically disadvantaged groups, understanding that distinction is important.

What the Seven Federal Agencies Changed

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Justice, and Federal Housing Finance Agency jointly rescinded the 2022 “Interagency Statement on Special Purpose Credit Programs Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B.” The notice was published in the Federal Register on August 25 as Document No. 2026-17307 and became effective the same day.

The agencies said they took the action to make two points clear: creditors may not discriminate against borrowers based on prohibited characteristics, and lenders should no longer rely on the 2022 statement or related issuances. The OCC separately rescinded its 2022 bulletin that had distributed the earlier interagency guidance to banks it supervises.

Notably, the Federal Reserve participated in the original 2022 statement but is not among the seven agencies listed in the 2026 rescission.

What Are Special Purpose Credit Programs?

Special purpose credit programs, or SPCPs, are not simply a product created by the 2022 guidance. Regulation B itself continues to contain provisions allowing certain qualifying credit programs designed to meet particular needs.

These can include credit-assistance programs expressly authorized by federal or state law for economically disadvantaged groups, qualifying nonprofit programs, and certain programs offered by for-profit organizations to meet special social needs.

The 2022 interagency statement encouraged creditors to explore these programs as a way of increasing credit access for historically disadvantaged people and communities. It also sought to reassure financial institutions that were uncertain about when such programs were permissible under ECOA and Regulation B.

That encouragement has now been withdrawn.

A Separate 2026 Rule Already Changed the Ground Rules

The rescission makes more sense in the context of a significant regulatory change that occurred earlier this year.

On April 22, 2026, the CFPB finalized amendments to Regulation B covering disparate-impact liability, discouragement of applicants and special purpose credit programs. Among other changes, the updated regulation prohibits certain SPCPs from using an applicant’s race, color, national origin or sex as a common characteristic or eligibility factor.

The OCC specifically pointed to that change in explaining the August rescission, noting that the 2022 statement had referenced an earlier version of Regulation B that has since been amended.

That distinction is important because the new announcement should not be interpreted as meaning that every SPCP is now prohibited. Current Regulation B still expressly provides for qualifying special purpose credit programs, subject to the regulation’s requirements.

What This Could Mean for Borrowers

Consumers probably won’t see their existing mortgage, credit card, or other conventional loan suddenly change because of the August 25 announcement. The more immediate impact falls on lenders that operate, design or were considering special purpose credit programs.

Financial institutions now have to evaluate those programs under the current version of Regulation B without relying on the assurances contained in the 2022 interagency statement.

For borrowers, the practical effect could eventually appear in the availability, eligibility criteria, or design of certain targeted lending programs. However, the rescission notice itself does not announce that a particular bank program has been canceled or that a specific group of borrowers will lose access to credit.

Consumers enrolled in an existing program should therefore avoid assuming that the federal announcement automatically terminates their participation. Questions about an individual loan or program are best directed to the lender administering it.

Federal Fair-Lending Protections Still Apply

The withdrawal also does not eliminate ECOA’s broader protections against credit discrimination.

The CFPB’s current Regulation B resources continue to cover consumer credit, business credit, mortgages, refinancing, credit applications, servicing and other lending activities.

The seven agencies emphasized in their rescission that creditors may not discriminate against borrowers based on prohibited characteristics. In other words, this is a change in federal guidance concerning special purpose credit programs, not the repeal of federal fair-lending law.

Borrowers who encounter a change to a special lending program should pay attention to what their lender actually says has changed rather than assuming the August announcement applies identically to every program.

What Happens Next

Banks, credit unions, mortgage companies, and other creditors operating SPCPs will need to review their programs against the amended Regulation B and current federal guidance. The CFPB has also updated its ECOA examination procedures following the April regulatory changes, meaning the new framework is already reflected in federal supervisory materials.

For consumers, there is no universal action required because of the August 25 rescission. Someone currently applying through a special purpose credit program can ask the lender whether eligibility or program terms have changed and whether other assistance programs remain available.

The key takeaway is narrower than the original auto-generated release suggests: the federal government has withdrawn the 2022 guidance encouraging these programs, but special purpose credit programs themselves have not simply disappeared from federal law.

What to Read Next

IRS Proposes New Eligibility Rules for Refundable Payments From 4 Tax Credits

FTC Credit Repair Case Shows Why “Quick Fix” Credit Promises Can Cost Consumers Thousands

FDIC Publishes 2026 Risk Review Covering Funding, Interest Rate, and Credit Risks Facing Banks

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: banking, CFPB, consumer finance, credit, ECOA, FDIC, mortgages, Regulation B, Special Purpose Credit Programs

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 5
  • Next Page »

Follow Us

Search this site:

Recent Posts

  • Can My Savings Account Affect My Financial Aid? by Tamila McDonald
  • 12 Ways Gen X’s Views Clash with Millennials… by Tamila McDonald
  • What Advantages and Disadvantages Are There To… by Jacob Sensiba
  • 10 Tactics for Building an Emergency Fund from Scratch by Vanessa Bermudez
  • Call 911: Go To the Emergency Room Immediately If… by Stephen Kanaval
  • 7 Weird Things You Can Sell Online by Tamila McDonald
  • 10 Scary Facts About DriveTime by Tamila McDonald

Copyright © 2026 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework