Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Naturopathic Medicine topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supporters, Insurers Trade Views in Public Hearing on Naturopathic Medicine Bill
Summary
Supporters of House Bill 3439 told the House Behavioral Health and Health Care Committee that naturopathic physicians provide prevention-focused primary care; insurers warned the change could raise costs without increasing access. Testimony came from patients, an advocacy group founder and representatives of Providence and Moda Health.
Representative Kevin Boyce reopened public testimony on House Bill 3439 on March 4, 2025, telling the House Committee on Behavioral Health and Health Care that the hearing would take remarks from additional witnesses on naturopathic medicine. Representative Boyce described naturopathic medicine as blending ancient approaches with modern science and expressed strong support for the bill.
The bill drew personal testimony from patients and advocates. Ellen Levino, founder of Patient Advocates for Naturopathic Physicians, described her experience as a longtime patient: “Naturopaths go to medical school. They diagnose and treat patients with scientific and evidence based methods along with ordering labs, writing prescriptions, and so on.” Levino urged committee members to support HB 3439 on behalf of the 180 members of her group and to consider the patient-access and affordability concerns she described.
Opponents included insurance and provider representatives who warned the changes in HB 3439 would raise systemwide costs. Jessica Adamson, representing Providence Health & Services, said the bill “will add cost to the system without changing access or expanding care,” and urged the committee to be mindful of tradeoffs before changing reimbursement rules. Fawn Berry of Moda Health testified that Moda estimates the bill could increase premium rates by about 0.1 to 0.15 percent and cautioned the committee that higher cost-sharing could raise out-of-pocket coinsurance for patients.
Committee members asked witnesses about prior parity changes for physician assistants and nurse practitioners and the downstream effects on primary care practices. Witnesses and several legislators discussed how prior parity work required complementary rules and funding to sustain independent practices. Representative McIntyre asked about the impact of the 2013 decisions to expand parity for PAs and NPs; witnesses described mixed long-term effects, including continued financial pressure on independent primary care practices.
The committee closed the public hearing on HB 3439 after stakeholder comments and said the bill would be considered further in the work session. No formal vote or action on the bill occurred at the March 4 hearing.
Why it matters: HB 3439 would affect who counts as a primary care provider for reimbursement and network rules in the Oregon Health Plan. Supporters say it would reduce administrative barriers and preserve patient access to trusted providers; insurers and some provider groups worry about increased costs and the fiscal effects on primary care practices.
