Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Naturopathic Pay Parity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Naturopathic physicians press for pay parity in Oregon; proponents cite primary‑care access concerns
Summary
Supporters of House Bill 34,39 urged pay parity for naturopathic physicians with other primary care clinicians, saying reimbursement disparities are driving clinic closures and reducing access; sponsors said the bill does not change scope of practice and seeks to align payment, not expand services.
Representative Rob Nose opened a public hearing on House Bill 34,39, describing a personal health example and arguing that when naturopathic physicians provide primary‑care services similar to medical doctors, they should be reimbursed at the same level.
Representatives and numerous witnesses — including the Oregon Association of Naturopathic Physicians, integrated clinics that employ NDs, patients and family members — testified in favor. Dr. Rebecca Principe of the Oregon Association of Naturopathic Physicians said NDs have four years of post‑bachelor medical training, residency pathways in Oregon, and are licensed as primary care providers. “This discrepancy in reimbursement is pushing NDs to close their businesses, to move out of state, to drop out of the insurance system,” Principe said. She cited carrier data showing reimbursement for common visit codes at about 40–60% of payments made to MDs/NPs/PAs for the same codes.
Clinic leaders described hiring and retention problems. Lindsay Baum, representing Greene Integrative Health, said her clinic serves 10,000 patients and provides full-spectrum primary care including prenatal and hospice care in rural settings; trained naturopathic residents often leave the state because low reimbursement makes local practice unsustainable.
Patients and professional colleagues described clinical outcomes and continuity of care. Lydia Reed, a registered nurse and patient of a naturopathic physician, told the committee her ND provided a treatment path that let her continue working without disruptive side effects and that losing access to that clinician would harm continuity for families.
Witnesses and sponsors emphasized the bill is a payment‑parity measure, not a scope expansion. They pointed to a 2013 precedent when the Legislature extended pay parity to other clinician types (PAs and NPs). Proponents estimated the state fiscal impact would be small relative to other health spending and argued that fair pay could improve primary care access, especially in rural areas.
The committee carried over the hearing to a later date to give opponents a chance to testify; no final committee action was taken on HB 34,39 during this session’s recorded proceedings.
