Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the HB 4119 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MLAC votes to oppose HB 4119 after debate over MCO provider access and cost
Summary
The Workers' Compensation Management‑Labor Advisory Committee voted to recommend not supporting HB 4119 after hearing testimony that the bill would restrict MCO discretion and could raise claim costs, despite proponents saying it would expand provider choice for injured workers.
The Workers' Compensation Management‑Labor Advisory Committee voted to recommend that the Legislature not support HB 4119 after extended testimony and stakeholder debate on Feb. 5, 2026. Rep. Muñoz urged the committee to back the bill, saying it would "prevent discrimination against any willing provider" and broaden attending‑physician categories to improve access, particularly in rural areas.
Opponents—including Ann Klein, president of Majoris Health Systems, and SAIF representatives—testified that the bill would remove an MCO's ability to curate its network and could increase claim costs and employer premiums. "The bill does not address Oregon's provider shortages and contradicts the statutory MCO framework," Ann Klein said, adding that Majoris data show only 1.2% of enrolled workers used nonnetwork care over the past three years.
Stakeholders disputed empirical evidence. Dr. Vern Saboe, a chiropractor testifying in favor, cited a 2021 Workers' Compensation Research Institute analysis suggesting lower costs when chiropractic physicians exclusively treat injured workers, while SAIF and Sedgwick said their internal reviews show higher costs when chiropractors serve as attending physicians. Co‑chair Scott Strickland and other members noted both the policy and data questions and the committee's desire to continue workplan discussions on provider access.
After discussion, Ryan Hearn moved the recommendation that MLAC not support HB 4119; Emily Cronan seconded. The motion passed with no opposition or abstention. The committee directed staff to draft letters reflecting the co‑chairs' positions for submission to the Legislature.
The committee's decision was advisory: MLAC issues recommendations to the legislative process, and the bill remains under consideration by the Legislature.
