Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Committee hears competing views on regulating health‑care sharing ministries under HB 2,268
Summary
Supporters of HB 2,268 urged registration and disclosure requirements for health‑care sharing ministries to protect consumers; industry representatives argued the proposal is intrusive, raises constitutional concerns and that existing consumer‑protection laws and accreditation are sufficient.
SALEM, Ore. — Lawmakers heard sharply divided testimony on May 29 about House Bill 2,268, a bill that would require registration and public reporting by health‑care sharing ministries operating in Oregon.
Supporters told the House Committee on Behavioral Health and Health Care that ministries and other sharing arrangements often market themselves like insurance but are not legally required to pay claims or cover essential benefits; they urged the bill as a transparency and consumer‑protection measure. Representatives of the industry said the proposal would impose invasive reporting requirements, risk constitutional problems and duplicate existing consumer‑protection tools.
Fish Stark, executive director of the Center for Free Thought Equality, told the committee that health‑care sharing ministries “talk like insurance and advertise like insurance until the moment you actually need coverage.” He…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
