Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Healthcare Workforce Noncompetes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Amendments to Senate Bill 951 debated: committee hears bid to void many medical noncompetes and tighten MSO rules
Summary
Rep. Ben Bowman and Sen. Anthony Broadman presented dash‑3 amendments to House Bill 34 10 to align and strengthen a recently passed Senate bill on medical practice ownership and to tightly limit enforceable noncompetition agreements for health care providers. Business groups warned about retroactivity and contract‑law concerns.
The House Rules Committee examined dash‑3 amendments to House Bill 34 10 on May 29 that would modify parts of Senate Bill 951 and add provisions voiding or tightly limiting many noncompetition agreements used by medical practices.
Representative Ben Bowman, sponsor of the amendment, said the combined package narrows exceptions and provides a pathway for practices to recoup recruitment costs while largely prohibiting broad noncompete clauses. Bowman told the committee the amendment lowers the threshold for a physician‑owner exception and allows a limited noncompete for staff clinicians only where the employer documents a recruitment investment — for example, a sign‑on payment — and the restriction is time‑limited (three years generally, five years if the clinician practices in a federally designated health professional shortage area).
Senator Anthony Broadman argued the changes are necessary to improve access to care in underserved areas by removing restraints on clinicians who can otherwise be blocked from practicing locally. "Non competes are making us less healthy and they're making care more expensive," he said, urging retroactive application to prevent existing contracts from locking physicians out of practice.
Business and defense groups raised legal and implementation concerns. Oregon Business & Industry and the Oregon Liability Reform Coalition told the committee they do not oppose removing noncompetes in principle but warned that retroactive invalidation of private contracts raises constitutional and commercial risks, could affect funds already paid under those contracts, and may invite litigation. OBI asked for clarification on how retroactivity would treat payments already made to employees or buyouts paid to practices.
Legal questions about enforcement, effective dates and remedy provisions were discussed at length. Some witnesses urged removing enhanced remedies such as punitive damages and one‑way attorney fee provisions and using ordinary contract‑law remedies. Committee members had limited time for questions and did not take a final vote on the dash‑3 amendment in the hearing.
