The Unfulfilled Promise of Oregon’s Healthcare Oversight Law

A unique law enacted in 2021 has granted the state’s health department broad power to review and reject acquisitions and mergers of hospitals, hospices, and medical practices. The idea was to prevent multibillion-dollar deals from consolidating healthcare services, thereby reducing competition and driving up costs.

However, five years into its implementation, the state has yet to block a single transaction or issue any fines. This paradox raises questions about the effectiveness of the law and the true intentions behind it.

The law’s failure to deliver on its promise can be seen in recent deals. When UnitedHealth Group acquired LHC Group for $5.4 billion in 2023, it shuttered a rural hospice agency in Central Oregon, raising concerns about potential reductions in access to care. Similarly, after Amazon bought One Medical for $3.9 billion, it closed the group’s downtown Portland practice and cut $100 million in operating expenses nationwide.

These developments highlight a worrying trend: despite having the authority to block such deals, Oregon’s regulators have chosen not to exercise their power. In some cases, they have even appeared to turn a blind eye to practices that contradict the very purpose of the law. For example, when Clayton, Dubilier & Rice acquired a hospice provider in 2022, regulators accepted the company’s assurances that it wouldn’t change locations or staffing. Yet, after the deal closed, the company proceeded to close a Salem hospice.

The lack of effective oversight by Oregon’s health department has far-reaching implications for patients like Dana Gibbon, who struggled to find an obstetrician when her clinic was shut down due to UnitedHealth Group’s acquisition. The experience is not unique; numerous Corvallis residents faced similar disruptions in care due to the consolidation of healthcare services.

This failure to act also raises questions about the motivations behind the law. Was it truly designed to protect patients and prevent harm, or was it merely a symbolic gesture aimed at satisfying lawmakers’ and regulators’ sense of justice? The fact that Oregon’s health department has yet to block any transactions suggests that the law may have been more about optics than actual reform.

The consequences of this inaction are dire. Patients continue to face reduced access to care, increased costs, and diminished quality of services. Healthcare providers like Dr. Nicole Kruppa, who quit her practice due to unsustainable workloads after the sale of her clinic, also suffer from burnout and decreased job satisfaction.

To rectify this situation, Oregon’s regulators must be held accountable for their inaction. They should prioritize transparency and accountability in their dealings with healthcare companies, ensuring that patients’ interests are protected. Furthermore, lawmakers should revisit the law to address its shortcomings and strengthen its provisions.

Ultimately, the fate of Oregon’s healthcare oversight law serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of effective regulation. By allowing consolidation and reducing competition, these deals undermine the very fabric of our healthcare system. As we move forward, it is essential that policymakers prioritize patients’ needs over corporate interests and work towards creating a more equitable and accessible healthcare landscape.

The buck stops with Oregon’s regulators now. Will they take decisive action to uphold their promise, or will they continue to falter in their duty to protect patients? The consequences of inaction are too great to ignore.