EDIT: Other commenters have pointed out reasons why the elimination of debt sold really cheap is unlikely to affect much the lives of recipients. Still, if the debt relieved did in fact significantly help the beneficiaries, it could turn out to be very effective. However, we won't know until RIP releases recipient outcomes data.
TL;DR: About as cost-effective as GiveWells's top charities, IF my assumption about outcomes is broadly right. $14.16 to provide debt relief to one person. If one assumes a lifespan increase of 0.2% (less than two months) as the effect (by preventing healthcare avoidance), it comes out to $7080 per death-equivalent-in-lifespan averted. I recommend looking further into it, particularly with respect to outcomes.
Hi Layla, welcome to the Forum! Thanks for posting!
This looks like an interesting opportunity. Within the cause area of health in the US, RIP seems to have chosen a big and tractable problem, and to be triaging their beneficiaries according to the relevant metrics.
Here is my attempt to have a rough idea about RIP's cost-effectiveness.
RIP claims that it has "helped 5,492,948 individuals and families" and has relieved $8,520,147,644 of medical debt. The average debt relieved per recipient is thus $8,520,147,644 / 5,492,948 = $1551. If, as you say, "every $100 donated clears $10,000 in medical debt", then the cost per recipient is $15.51 (!!!).
I was initially skeptical of this calculation, but it checks out. In its 2021 year end report, RIP says that it relieved debt to 1,312,697 people during the year, and in its 2021 financial statement declares total expenses of $18,587,272. So the cost per recipient is $18,587,272 / 1,312,697 = $14.16.
It's hard to estimate the benefit from medical debt reduction. Let's say, for the sake of simplicity, that the avoidance of medical treatment and mental health problems derived from struggling with medical debt make people live 0.2% shorter lives (1.92 months if starting out with an 80-year lifespan), and that the debt relief provided eliminates that effect. It follows that preventing 0.002 death-equivalents costs $14.16, and thus preventing one death-equivalent unit of lifespan reduction costs $7080. This is about as cost-effective as GiveWell's most recommended charities.
This would be huge if true. However, my priors advise me against getting too hopeful. It should be hard to find a charity about as cost-effective as GiveWell's top charities. RIP has been assessed by Charity Navigator, and does a fair bit of marketing. It would be weird if no EA had picked this up before. I have reason to believe that I am overestimating the positive effects of debt relief.
To find out whether RIP is really so effective, it would be great to have numbers on the welfare outcomes of debt relief. I found this report on RIP's site, which while a potentially useful qualitative source, makes no effort to quantify outcomes.
I don't believe this is true. Some sources that claim by pointing out that on over half of bankruptcy proceedings involve medical debt, but that doesn't mean the medical debt was the problem - in bankruptcy you discharge essentially all the debts you have, including smaller ones that were not really the cause of the bankruptcy. Do you have any sources in mind that medical debt is actually the main driver here?
I also don't believe this. In fact I think it is contradicted by one of your links, which says:
Since many people have debt but don't struggle with it, the number who struggle is presumably considerably less than 100 million.
"Two-thirds of people who file for bankruptcy cite medical issues as a key contributor to their financial downfall." https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most-americans-file-for-bankruptcy.html
This results from several factors: Having to take time off work for medical treatments (the United States does not offer paid sick leave in all states), having to change work schedules/reduce hours, and the costs of treatments themselves.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/22/100-million-adults-have-health-care-debt-and-some-owe-10000-or-more.html
This is directly from the Kaiser study which found that medical debt impacts 100 million Americans. Overall, an estimated 41% of people — or about 100 million adults — currently face such debt, ranging from under $500 (16%) to $10,000 or more (12%), according to a report from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Using $2,500 as a base level, 56% who carry medical and/or dental debt owe below that amount and 44% owe that much or more.
However, some of that medical debt may not have shown up in past estimates or surveys. For example, some is on credit cards (17% of adults are paying that way) or is being paid off over time directly to a doctor, hospital or other health-care provider (21%).
For instance, 63% with current or recent debt (within the past five years) said it caused them to cut spending on food, clothing and other basics — including 51% of those with annual household income above $90,000. Nearly half (48%) with such debt said they used up all or most of their savings to pay it off.
First of all, this is weaker than your original claim, which is that medical debt (not medical issues more broadly) was the leading cause, and secondly CNBC is mis-citing the underlying study, which only asks about whether something is a contributor, not if it is a "key" contributor:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6366487/
I also wonder if there is some social desirability bias in the responses here, where medical debt is less shameful to admit to than things like imprudence, gambling or drug addiction.
"Medical issues" is much broader than "medical debt" though.
In general, I'd say this is helpful in showing that medical debt is a problem, but not that this organization's programs are effective. Debt on a credit card, that is being paid on, or on which the creditor intends legal action isn't the kind of stale debt that is going to be sold for a penny on the dollar. The harms described above have already happened before RIP MD gets involved.