Testimony split at hearing for HB 2577 telehealth-in-schools pilot; private vendor and school-health advocates clash over model

The House Education Committee on Feb. 5 heard testimony on House Bill 2577, which would require the Oregon Health Authority to establish a pilot program providing telehealth services in schools, set selection and participation requirements, require reporting, allow rulemaking, and appropriate $2,000,000 from the general fund; the bill declares an emergency and would take effect on passage.

Why it matters: Supporters said a state-run telehealth pilot could expand access to behavioral and primary care for students in rural, frontier and linguistically diverse districts facing workforce shortages. Opponents raised concerns about vendor business models, alignment with existing school-based health services, potential long-term costs and whether state funds would duplicate or crowd out local investments.

Supportive testimony: Erin Davis, representing Hazel Health, described the company as "the nation's largest and most trusted provider of telehealth in the K–12 space," noted Hazel’s presence in 17 states and more than 6 million students nationally, and told the committee the company’s model brings "net new clinicians" and has shown reductions in anxiety and depression in short courses of care, as well as decreases in chronic absenteeism and disciplinary actions in some districts. Doctor Travis Gales, Hazel Health’s chief health officer, said Hazel uses intake screeners to match students to appropriate lengths of therapy and that the company can coordinate warm handoffs to local providers when higher-acuity care is required.

Opposing and cautionary testimony: Maureen Hinman, Executive Director of the Oregon School Based Health Alliance, opposed the bill, urging lawmakers to scrutinize vendor commitments and whether services would complement existing school-based health centers (SBHCs). She said "children do not benefit from brief care by rotating strangers on a screen" and questioned who would bear costs after the pilot and whether the vendor model would divert local providers. Other speakers and committee members asked for more data on utilization in Oregon, insurer billing practices, and the vendor payment model.

Funding and payment model details discussed: Hazel Health representatives said the pilot or sponsoring entity would pay a population-based fee (described in testimony as $15 per student per year in some district implementations) that covers technology and services; Hazel also accepts insurance (including Medicaid) but testified that no costs would be passed to families and that Hazel would absorb copays or cost-sharing for families. Committee members asked how often students use such services and where clinicians are located; Hazel said it would provide clinicians licensed in-state if awarded the pilot and that utilization rates vary by district engagement.

Committee action: The hearing was informational; the record was left open for written testimony for 48 hours. Witnesses and members were asked to upload additional documentation requested during questioning.

What's next: The committee will consider testimony and submitted materials as it develops a recommendation. The pilot’s design, procurement and oversight questions were central to the hearing and will influence whether the bill advances.