Physician groups push bill to require Oregon physicians hold majority control of local practices

Representative Nancy Nathanson told the House Committee on Behavioral Health and Health Care that many constituents asked lawmakers to address the increasing corporate influence in medical practices and to clarify who is permitted to control clinical decisions. She introduced House Bill 3225 to require that the majority of voting shares and board seats of a professional corporation organized to practice medicine in Oregon be held by physicians who practice and reside in the state.

Nathanson said the bill responds to local disruptions in care, including large physician departures from a practice that left thousands of patients without a primary provider. “Who’s in charge? Is a physician in charge? I think our constituents want to know that it is a local Oregon physician, not a corporate representative,” she said.

Organizations representing family physicians, emergency physicians and the Oregon Medical Association testified in support, arguing physician ownership and local management preserve clinical independence and protect continuity of care. Iris Maria Chavez of the Oregon Academy of Family Physicians said a residency‑in‑Oregon requirement and a majority‑control rule would prevent out‑of‑state entities from exerting ultimate control.

Opponents cautioned the bill’s domicile requirements risk reducing access to care, particularly for integrated systems and telehealth providers that employ clinicians who live across state lines. Jen Lewishkoff of Kaiser Permanente Northwest said rigid residency rules could prevent providers who live in a neighboring state from serving Oregon patients, and Cigna’s counsel told the committee the measure could curtail telehealth availability. Mark Bonanno, general counsel for the Oregon Medical Association, said the OMA supports the concept of physician control but is working with sponsors on pending amendments that would clarify how the rule applies in modern practice structures.

The committee closed the public hearing on HB 3225 and heard that stakeholders are preparing amendments to address cross‑border clinicians, commuting ranges and alignment with companion bills that address corporate practice and related governance questions. No committee vote occurred during the hearing.