Lawmakers consider banning non‑competes for medical providers after local access losses

Representative Nancy Nathanson told the committee that House Bill 3227 is narrowly aimed at preventing enforced non‑compete clauses that keep licensed medical providers from practicing in their communities amid a national provider shortage. Nathanson cited examples after a large practice acquisition in which physicians bound by non‑compete language were unable to see patients in the same community for 12 months.

Physician groups, emergency medicine specialists and local advocates testified in strong support. John Moorhead of the Oregon College of Emergency Physicians said non‑competes are “ubiquitous” and often present in “take‑it‑or‑leave‑it” employment contracts for newly trained clinicians. Dr. Nicholas Jones and other former physicians at Oregon Medical Group described how practice ownership changes and non‑compete clauses reduced local capacity and increased emergency department utilization.

Supporters and the Oregon Medical Association told the committee they expect amendments to broaden the bill’s protections and move non‑compete rules into existing BOLI statute so prohibitions would apply to a wider set of health‑care professionals. Greg Fitzgerald, a community leader and former health‑care board chair, urged lawmakers to treat health care as a public‑service domain rather than a pure profit activity and said non‑competes are “grossly unfair.”

Opponents were limited in the hearing record; some raised concerns about protecting legitimate investments such as practice startup costs and recruitment incentives. Nathanson and supporters said contractual alternatives — such as repayment provisions for recruitment expenses — can protect employer investments without banning a clinician from practicing.

The committee closed the public hearing on HB 3227; sponsors said an amendment would be posted that broadens coverage and moves enforcement to existing employment non‑compete law.