Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Insurance Mandates Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would create advisory committee to review insurance benefit mandates; supporters say it would give legislators better data
Summary
House Bill 2,690 would pilot a nonpartisan Health Insurance Mandate Review Advisory Committee to analyze proposed insurance benefit mandates; insurers, employers and health systems supported the measure as a way to provide data on costs, equity and clinical effectiveness before votes.
Representative Hai Pham introduced House Bill 2,690 as a two‑year pilot that would create a Health Insurance Mandate Review Advisory Committee to study proposed benefit mandates before the legislature votes on them. “It is essential that legislators and decision makers have detailed and accurate information to better understand the many insurance mandates that we are asked to consider,” Pham said.
Kaiser Permanente’s government relations director Jen Lewis Goff, PacificSource, and several industry and employer groups told the committee the volume of mandate bills this session made it difficult to assess fiscal and clinical impacts. Goff said mandates cumulatively raise premiums and that the committee would help legislators understand scope, applicability to public plans (OEBB, PEBB, Medicaid), and implementation timing.
Rick Blackwell of PacificSource said the advisory body would replace an older statutory report requirement and would provide a broader, nonbinding review of medical efficacy, fiscal impact and equity concerns. He described a constrained pilot scope -- chairs would submit a limited number of mandate bills for review during the pilot, to limit staff and fiscal needs.
Representatives of benefit brokers and employer groups, including the Oregon chapter of the National Association of Benefits and Insurance Professionals, supported the bill’s pragmatic approach to allowing legislative leadership to select bills for review and avoiding binding policy recommendations. No opponents spoke in opposition in the hearing portion recorded.
