This MEDICAL billings referenced in either XXXX XXXX XXXX original account numbers XXXX or XXXX have been fully paid by The Department of Veterans Affairs, ( XXXX, WI ). Documentation from the VA agency ( dated XXXX XXXX, 2015 ) is proof of payment. However, Commonwealth Financial Systems has improperly reported XXXX or both of the {$810.00} billings as a Charge Off-Collections action to the XXXX credit bureau. The payor is not the patient, but is The Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, ( XXXX ). The XXXX VA office has provided a detailed XXXX-page payment document that clearly identifies the all-inclusive payment to the initial provider, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, WI. The full payment, dated XXXX XXXX, 2015, is recognized by Federal Law to the INITIAL medical provider, and it is also recognized as FULL PAYMENT to associated medical providers who had provided medical procedures relevant to the care at the XXXX XXXX XXXX. Important : An associated medical procedure is also recognized as a " Packaged '', " Inclusive '', or " Unbundled '' line item on any billing, and page XXXX of the Veterans Administration ( VA ) sheet clearly identifies those line items " are not the patient responsibility. '' In this matter, the VA payment is to the Hospital and separate Medical Providers are to gain their payment ( s ) from the Hospital. This is a MEDICAL issue, and any report of a delinquency ( which is not the case, here, because it is paid ), must include a " Dispute '' annotation if reported to a Credit Bureau. However, Commonwealth Financial Systems identifies XXXX ( or both ) of the Infinity billings a a " Charge Off-Collections '' action without accurately identifying the matter as a Medical Dispute.