Sen. Roger Marshall says Chuck Schumer was behind a politically motivated report targeting his former medical practice, while Democrats point to patient lawsuits and arrests.
Marshall disputed a New York Times account alleging that he and his lawyers sued more than 700 former patients over unpaid medical bills. The report also described an 18% annual interest rate and said 81 patients were arrested after missing court dates.
The dispute has moved into the Kansas Senate race, where Marshall seeks a second term against Democratic nominee Adam Hamilton. Marshall calls the coverage a political attack, while Hamilton’s campaign says the senator must answer for the collection practices.
Marshall made his case during an interview at the Republican National Committee’s midterm convention in Dallas. He alleged that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer paid for or planted the Times report, though no evidence supporting that charge was identified.
In the interview reported by Fox News Digital, Marshall said:
“I think that Kansans look at a story like this and realize it's from something like the National Enquirer, that this is totally a hit job by left media, an article paid for by Chuck Schumer,”
That is a serious charge against the Democratic leader. But Marshall also said he had not read the Times account, which limits his ability to answer its details one by one.
Marshall said his former Heartland Regional OB-GYN practice followed standard policies for overdue bills. Once an account entered collections, he said, professional collection companies controlled the process.
He said the office generally waited nine months to a year before considering a collection agency. Under what he called his “golden rule,” a patient who communicated and paid $5 per month could remain in good standing.
Marshall also said only a small fraction of unpaid bills reached collections. He maintained that his office had no role in later decisions after turning over those accounts.
“I would never want anyone to be arrested because of money that they owe myself or the hospital,” Marshall said. He argued that judges would not have acted as the Times described without more to the cases.
The available claims do not identify the courts, case numbers, warrants or legal grounds behind the arrests. The Times account, as summarized by Fox, tied the 81 arrests to missed court dates rather than stating that police arrested patients merely for owing money.
That distinction matters. So does the missing documentation needed to judge how each case moved from an unpaid bill to a court appearance and, in some cases, an arrest.
Hamilton campaign spokesman Tyson Brody said Marshall’s own lawyer claimed the senator specifically requested an 18% interest rate. Brody described that figure as 50% above Kansas’ statutory rate, though the specific statute was not identified.
Brody also alleged that Marshall allowed his lawyer to pursue warrants, arrests and garnishments against patients. Garnishment is a legal process used to take money from wages or other funds to satisfy a debt.
The spokesman cited one woman who allegedly sought a payment plan but faced demands for full payment. He said another woman reported being arrested while struggling to make payments.
Brody further accused Marshall of having patients jailed over debts as low as $115. The patient, court and case tied to that amount were not identified, leaving a central campaign charge without the underlying record in public view.
Marshall’s defense rests on distance from the collection process. The Democratic attack rests on allegations that he set the interest rate and authorized aggressive legal steps. Those positions cannot both describe his role fully.
Vice President JD Vance backed Marshall during a campaign appearance after a protester interrupted and referred to the Times report. Vance accused the protester of lying about Marshall and praised the senator’s record in Washington.
Marshall pointed to his years as an OB-GYN to argue that the report distorted his broader record. He said he was the only OB-GYN serving an area of 60,000 people and was on call almost every night for nearly 30 years.
He also said his practice accepted Medicaid, provided care before payment and wrote off many bills. Those points offer context about his medical work, but they do not settle the narrower questions about interest charges, lawsuits and collection orders.
The fight also places interest rates at the center of Marshall’s campaign. He has supported putting President Donald Trump’s proposed one-year cap on credit-card interest rates into law, even as his former practice faces scrutiny over the alleged 18% rate.
Marshall has offered a clear account of his office policy: long delays before collections, small monthly payments for patients who stayed in contact, and no control after collection companies took over.
His opponents have offered specific allegations about the interest rate, warrants and a $115 debt. Yet the public claims presented so far lack the court files and case details needed to test those assertions fully.
Marshall’s allegation against Schumer faces the same problem. Naming a political opponent does not establish who financed, planted or directed a newspaper investigation.
Political attacks deserve scrutiny, but so does power over patients in debt. Accountability cannot stop where campaign messaging begins.
