top of page

​

81st OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2021 Regular Session

 

Senate Bill 684

Sponsored by Senator FREDERICK (at the request of Elizebeth R. Harmon) (Presession filed.)

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY:

The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor’s brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced.

 

Establishes Task Force on Oregon Medical Board. Directs task force to review board powers and duties. Requires task force to report to interim committee of Legislative Assembly not later than September 15, 2022.

Sunsets December 31, 2022.

Declares emergency, effective on passage.

 

  1. A BILL FOR AN ACT

  2. Relating to the Task Force on the Oregon Medical Board; and declaring an emergency.

  3. Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:

  4. SECTION 1. (1) The Task Force on the Oregon Medical Board is established.

  5. (2) The task force consists of nine members appointed as follows:

  6. (a) The President of the Senate shall appoint three members who are members of the

  7. public who have knowledge of the administrative processes of the Oregon Medical Board and

  8. who are not licensees, as defined in ORS 677.010.

  9. (b) The Speaker of the House of Representatives shall appoint three members who are

  10. members of the public who are consumers of services provided by licensees and who are not

  11. licensees.

  12. (c) The Governor shall appoint three members who are representatives of professional

  13. associations in this state that represent licensees.

  14. (3) The task force shall review:

  15. (a) The board’s ability and methodology used to determine which licensees may offer

  16. which health care therapies;

  17. (b) The board’s ability to require that hearing or court-related fees be imposed on a

  18. licensee during a disciplinary process;

  19. (c) The board’s ability to determine the particular judge, hearing officer or administrative

  20. law judge presides over a disciplinary proceeding;

  21. (d) The manner in which the board may assess fees and civil penalties against a licensee;

  22. (e) The expediting of a disciplinary process;

  23. (f) Whether the board may be required to inform a licensee who is investigated for a

  24. potential violation that results from a patient’s complaint about the nature of the complaint;

  25. (g) Emergency licensure revocations, including how the board determines what consti-

  26. tutes an emergency;

  27. (h) Whether the board can be compelled to reimburse a licensee for loss of income if it

  28. is determined through a disciplinary process that the licensee did not commit the violation

  29. that led to the disciplinary process; and

  30. (i) Whether the board can be compelled to pay a licensee’s attorney fees and other fees

 

 

NOTE: Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is new; matter [italic and bracketed] is existing law to be omitted. New sections are in boldfaced type.

LC 2724

 

SB 684

 

  1. incurred in a disciplinary process if the outcome of the disciplinary process is that the

  2. licensee did not commit a violation.

  3. (4) The task force may request information as necessary from the board.

  4. (5) A majority of the members of the task force constitutes a quorum for the transaction

  5. of business.

  6. (6) Official action by the task force requires the approval of a majority of the members

  7. of the task force.

  8. (7) The task force shall elect one of its members to serve as chairperson.

  9. (8) If there is a vacancy for any cause, the appointing authority shall make an appoint-

  10. ment to become immediately effective.

  11. (9) The task force shall meet at times and places specified by the call of the chairperson

  12. or of a majority of the members of the task force.

  13. (10) The task force may adopt rules necessary for the operation of the task force.

  14. (11) The task force shall submit a report in the manner provided in ORS 192.245, and may

  15. include recommendations for legislation, to an interim committee of the Legislative Assem-

  16. bly related to health care no later than September 15, 2022.

  17. (12) The Oregon Department of Administrative Services shall provide staff support to the

  18. task force.

  19. (13) Members of the task force are not entitled to compensation or reimbursement for

  20. expenses and serve as volunteers on the task force.

  21. (14) All agencies of state government, as defined in ORS 174.111, are directed to assist

  22. the task force in the performance of the duties of the task force and, to the extent permitted

  23. by laws relating to confidentiality, to furnish information and advice the members of the task

  24. force consider necessary to perform their duties.

  25. SECTION 2. Section 1 of this 2021 Act is repealed on December 31, 2022.

  26. SECTION 3. This 2021 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public

  27. peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2021 Act takes effect

  28. on its passage.

                                               ___________________________________

                                               

                 

 

 

 

 

Bullet Points:

​

Purpose: To create a task force to review powers of the Oregon Medical Board and address problems. The task force will be tasked with reviewing board procedures, rules, and alleged issues such as:
• The board’s power and methodology to determine which licensees may offer which treatment; decisions are not necessarily consistent or based on up-to-date medical literature.
• The board has the power to impose hearing/court-related fees on a licensee during a disciplinary process. If it is ultimately determined that the licensee did not commit a violation the board is not required to pay a licensee’s attorney fees and other fees incurred in a protracted disciplinary process.
• Hearing costs and fees are exorbitant and can be hundreds of thousands of dollars and prohibit doctors from getting justice; this prospect may force even innocent doctors into unreasonable “stipulations” that can cripple their practice.
• License revocation may be based on politics and retaliation rather than on patient safety.
• Fines are difficult to review and appear arbitrary, not necessarily linked to the nature of the alleged violation. There are no standards.
• The Process is financially devastating for doctors, even where the doctors are eventually found not to have violated any regulation and not to have put patients at any undue risk.
• Board practices particularly impact doctors in smaller independent practices, for whom the process is financially devastating.
• Women’s health care is impacted disproportionately.
• The secret nature of Board investigations and proceedings fosters an environment in which the Board has no accountability.
• Actual complaints, regardless of source or nature, are secret.
• Board discipline of doctors may rely on poorly evidenced medical literature.
• Board rules prohibit doctors from requesting more than once a year that a stipulated order be closed. There are no rules requiring the board to close
an order even if the terms have been met, and the board does not have to explain its reasoning for refusing to close an order. Orders are sometimes left open apparently to punish doctors who assert their rights, rather than protect patients.

• The emergency license revocation process can be arbitrary. The Board unilaterally determines if there is an emergency; not necessarily based on patient care, but rather contingent whether the board favors the particular doctor.
• Administrative Law Judges who are assigned to the Agency have relationships with Agency personnel which can lead to improper unconscious credibility assessments.
Outcome – It is anticipated that the Task Force will address the above and result in the following outcomes:
• The bill is anticipated to be budget neutral
• Appropriate review of Board will improve the way the board meets its duty to keep Oregon patients safe.
• Provides accountability to a potentially rogue Medical Board.
• Will encourage consistent application of Board rules and policy.
• Will allow medicine to advance in Oregon, as board concerns and actions will be known and consistent, not secret.
• More transparent, consistent board action would encourage Oregon doctors to remain in Oregon and would make Oregon more attractive to new doctors. We have a shortage now.

​

                       ____________________________

​

                   

 

 

 

 

 

 

                 

 

Message from Dr. Elizebeth Harmon, MD, MBA, FACOG

​

As an Oregonian and Physician caring for the women of my community concerned about the inconsistency and carefully cultivated obfuscation of the Oregon Medical Board (“OMB”), I write to you to request and encourage your support for Senate Bill 684.   This bill would set up a task force to review OMB powers procedures; it does not make any substantive law changes.  The bill is anticipated to be budget neutral, bipartisan, and has the potential for a broad positive impact on the practice of medicine in Oregon. I recognize the pressures on you at this time and thank you for your help in advance.

 

Senator Lew Frederick is sponsoring Senate Bill 684 (attached), to set up the task force to review the way the OMB operates – often to the detriment of both doctors and patients.  Not surprisingly, the OMB is opposing the bill, saying merely that “it is not needed.”   Why would the OMB oppose a task force to merely review its antiquated procedures if not to maintain its complete lack of accountability?   The bill would simply set up a task force to review and shed some light on the powers and practices of the OMB. Changes could then be made or not, as appropriate. Some issues in desperate need of review, including the fact that in any contested case on a proposed disciplinary action the OMB can recovery fees from a doctor, but a doctor who proves there was no violation cannot recover fees from the board, are included in the attached bullet points.

 

Senate Bill 684 provides a unique opportunity for real change to protect doctors, patients and the broader medical profession in Oregon, and should therefore not be permitted to die in committee. Your vocal support is vital. Please send a note to your senator or representative expressing your support as a physician in this state who understands that no agency should operate in secret, and medicine suffers and stagnates when doctors cannot rely on their board for consistency and transparency.

 

Time is of the essence:   Senate Bill 684 needs to get out of the Senate Health Care Committee and to the floor ASAP or it will die in committee.  There is real risk that the bill will not advance from committee without more clear and immediate support.  Please contact your local Senators and Representatives and let them know that you support Senate Bill 684.  Here is a link to determine who your legislators are and how to contact them.  If you personally know other legislators, please contact them for their support as well.  https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/FindYourLegislator/leg-districts.html

​

Together we can make changes to protect physicians and patients and make Oregon a healthier and safer state. 

​

dr-harmon11.jpg
bottom of page