Newsroom

In 1994, Oregon, under the leadership of then Senate President John Kitzhaber, unveiled an innovative program to provide more low-income Oregonians with health care coverage utilizing the same limited taxpayer resources. It’s foundation was ensuring that authorized treatments were both cost-effective and rooted in proven medical effectiveness. It was dubbed The Oregon Health Plan and upon implementation expanded coverage to more Oregonians than ever before.

The foundation was the Prioritized List, which ranked covered medical services based on their cost effectiveness coupled with proven medical science efficacy. No longer could patients badger their doctor to prescribe some drug with hard to pronounce names being pushed by Big Pharma, using slick  television ads showing folks spontaneously gathering at the town square in flowering skirts and tap shoes to dance and sing, celebrating  life renewal since taking the latest $5,000 a month wonder drug, only with science having proven that a $10 generic medication would have been just as effective.

Now leadership at the Oregon Health Authority has brought forth HB 4003 to eliminate the list from everywhere in statute they can find, a move that is destined to once again consume more tax dollars over time and likely means more Oregonians will lose their health care treatment altogether.

OHA has claimed for over a year that the move is demanded by the federal government through the Centers For Medicaid Services (CMS) and their hands are tied. Last summer OHA convened a panel of medical experts to develop a recommendation to scuttle the Prioritized List. It backfired. After evaluating the evidence presented, the panel voted overwhelmingly to keep the plan intact.

Just last week, documents from CMS paint a far different story than what OHA officials have been telling legislators. According to CMS responses to OHA, Oregon can continue to keep the Prioritized List as a key tool in guiding medical necessity, the key phrase needed for funding a particular treatment.  Specifically, they wrote:

 “The state can continue to use the prioritized list to guide medical necessity criteria…

We defer to the state to determine whether a service meets the state’s medical necessity criteria. CMS’s expectation is that should a service be denied, the state provides an appeal process consistent with federal requirements.”

(CMS January 20,2026)

Federal and state rules are often wonky and voluminous. Whittled down to its’ core elements, CMS’s response to OHA makes clear that Oregon’s Prioritized List is no longer needed in the state’s every five year waiver application to the federal government. The state, however, can continue to use the Prioritized List to guide medical necessity criteria within its’ own state policies, but without a distinct funding line for what would be covered and what would not.

Instead, the state’s medical necessity criteria would serve as the new basis for deciding whether a particular treatment can be funded. The state must also ensure a robust appeals process for those patients who believe any denial of treatment was unjustified. That system is already in place on multiple levels.

Unfortunately for OHA, the response from CMS does not align with the narrative the agency has been pushing to justify gutting Oregon’s innovative approach to healthcare because      “ The Federal Government made us do this.”

With Medicaid funding from the federal government to Oregon being slashed by billions of dollars over the next few years, legislators are being asked by their own state agency to do away with a nationally recognized program, a move that could exacerbate the current budget problem, and lead to tens of thousands more Oregonians losing access to healthcare altogether.

CMS says Oregon can insert the Prioritized list within its’ own policies, not obliterate it from statute. It also appears that the CMS requirements can be accomplished  under existing  administrative rule making authority and without legislation.

Legislators should forcefully demand answers from OHA about their intentions and the real motives behind them before they gut an Oregon Health Plan that has for years been heralded as both innovative and effective in providing health services to those that are most in need.

When it comes to politics, there is often a disconnect. One person’s solution is another person’s headache.

Public employee unions, the source of mother’s milk for Democratic campaigns, have been funding attack ads (or ‘educational messages’) on television and social media screens in some Democratic districts, hoping to pressure those members to vote to disconnect Oregon’s tax code from recently passed federal legislation.

Known as the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ by some, and the ‘Obscene Billionaire Bailout Bill’ by others, the legislation has a significant negative impact on Oregon’s state budget. Public employee unions are among those demanding legislators disconnect from the tax provisions of the federal legislation when it comes to assessing state income taxes on Oregonians. Doing so will help decrease the deficit now facing legislators as they try and save key programs and services from further reductions.

The ad strategy, however, is ill-advised and likely to backfire. Legislators may disconnect all right, just not the way some advocates had planned.

Those attacked will either recall why they were born with a middle finger or simply climb off the fence to the other side so as not to be labeled as bought and owned by political donors.

Political funders helped push Democrats into the quicksand on the transportation bill. Some of those legislators are not likely to be shoved into it again, hoping for a different result.

That leaves Democratic leaders stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place, and Republicans showing no signs of grabbing a crowbar to pry them loose.

Voters’ Wallets Drive the Debate

Yes, there are significant giveaways for the billionaire class. But Oregon only has three of them (billionaires, that is) and together they have given hundreds of millions away to various charities, so it is not a motivating message. Voters are more concerned about their own bank balance than worried about the checkbook of someone else. Yesterday, the Conference Board announced that consumer confidence dropped to its lowest level in 12 years as consumers fret over their income, expenses and the economy.

So, what are the tax breaks costing Oregon hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue the legislature might consider peeling back? How about taking back the tax exemption for tips earned by struggling restaurant servers or clawing back the tax exemption for overtime pay by farm workers? Roll back the expanded tax credit for a working mother’s childcare or how about the additional tax credits for seniors living on social security? What voter could possibly be upset about losing those?

Are Democratic leaders, already stung by the self-inflicted implosion of their transportation tax plan, prepared to play chess this time or unwittingly face checkmate by Republicans who are already plotting two moves ahead.

What if Republicans demand any disconnect bill be referred to the voters? Would Democrats vote that amendment down and press ahead anyway only to be buried in press coverage like: “Democrats have learned nothing from their transportation tax bill and are once again refusing to let voters decide on issues impacting their own family budgets.”

Where is the proposal? Like the transportation bill of 2025, will this bill be sprung with little time for the public (and legislators) to evaluate or amend? This is a sharp two-edged sword. If they reserve for plenty of public input in both chambers for the short five-week session, will they even have time to pass it? Will Republicans just walk out in each chamber a few days throughout the process and run out the clock on the session?

Who is the Democratic chess master for the session strategy?

Federal Cuts Require Federal Solution

The biggest hit, and it’s a huge one, to the state’s budget is not the tax cuts (most are temporary anyway), but in spending decisions by Congress forcing reductions in funding to states for food stamps for low-income families and in cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, which risks the loss of health care coverage for tens of thousands of Oregonians.

These are real and devastating. A change in Congress, however, is the only likely solution to solving those issues and Democrats are hard at work. Democrats are winning nationally on that front according to almost every recent poll. But again, it is because the issue of affordability resonates.

On the things Oregon can change, there may be elements of the tax code where the state can disconnect without impacting some of the more popular provisions. The analysis then must be: Are those savings enough to make a meaningful difference in budget reconciliation when weighed against a messaging war on affordability that to date, local Republicans appear to be winning.

One thing is clear: Attacking your own troops is not a way to win that battle.

Legislative Organizational Days are often misunderstood. They’re not about passing bills or settling debates. They’re about something quieter, and often more revealing — deciding what deserves attention first.

Over three days at the Capitol in mid-January, 42 of the Legislature’s 55 committees and subcommittees met to preview legislative concepts, receive agency briefings, and frame the issues lawmakers hope will advance during the 35-day February session, which begins Feb. 2. These meetings are less about neutral updates than they are about signaling which topics committee leaders choose to elevate and begin building momentum around.

Just as important are the issues they choose not to surface. Those omissions send a different signal, but an equally meaningful one.

Taken together, Organizational Days offered a revealing snapshot of how legislative leadership is preparing to govern in a moment defined by fiscal uncertainty, federal cost shifting, and administrative complexity. Several patterns stood out.

Managing Complexity, Not Constraint

Across committees, a consistent posture emerged: downward budget pressure is real but is being treated as something to be managed rather than used to constrain existing programs or commitments.

While program costs are increasing and the details of federal cost shifts to the state are complex, those pressures are being approached as administrative challenges to be absorbed through additional oversight, staffing, and management, rather than as a trigger to reconsider or narrow program commitments.

This posture appeared most clearly in discussions involving large, ongoing state systems, where rising costs and federal uncertainty were framed as problems of implementation and compliance, rather than structure. The emphasis was on administering increasingly complex systems, not simplifying them, even as the funding environment becomes less predictable.

Revenue Signals: Decisions Made and Deferred

If there is one area where committee activity sent unmistakable signals, it was revenue — not because lawmakers resolved Oregon’s structural funding challenges, but because of how they chose to approach them.

On one end of the spectrum, lawmakers appear willing to make politically difficult, highly specific choices when it comes to Oregon’s connection to the federal tax code. Bills advancing in the revenue committees would selectively disconnect Oregon from portions of federal tax law changes, preventing certain federal tax cuts from flowing automatically through the state code.

These are affirmative political decisions and will determine which provisions remain aligned, which do not, and which industries or activities are affected. Lawmakers appear prepared to own them directly.

Alongside that sits a far more consequential and precarious proposal: the introduction of a retail sales tax framework. The bill does not specify a tax rate, define the scope of taxable goods and services, or resolve core questions about exemptions or distribution. Instead, those defining decisions would be delegated to unelected bureaucrats after passage.

That structural choice matters. It allows the Legislature to advance a fundamentally transformative revenue policy while deferring the most politically sensitive decisions until later. This approach reduces political accountability at a time when accountability matters most. Whether the ultimate objective is long-term tax stability or the pursuit of new revenue, this is left unresolved in statute and leaves agencies to determine outcomes through rulemaking rather than open legislative debate.

Lessons From Tolling Backlash

Oregonians have seen this governing model before. In 2017, the Legislature authorized tolling through HB 2017, delegating core decisions like where tolls would be placed, how rates would be set, when pricing would vary, and who would be exempt to the Oregon Transportation Commission and ODOT. What followed were years of internal planning, environmental review, and administrative rulemaking, largely outside public view.

When the details finally surfaced, they did not arrive gradually. They landed with an incredible shockwave, and the sweeping proposal stunned voters who did not even realize such a program was being actively developed. The plans included nearly three dozen tolling points across the Portland metro area along with variable, time-of-day pricing that charged commuters more during peak hours, regardless of whether they had any realistic alternative.

The backlash was swift and overwhelming. A revenue structure of enormous consequence appeared fully formed, without having passed through a visible, accountable legislative discussion. Only then did the outrage reach elected officials in force, culminating first in a gubernatorial pause and ultimately in Gov. Tina Kotek’s decision to abandon the tolling effort entirely.

The parallel is difficult to ignore. Delegating taxing authority may simplify legislative politics in the short-term, but it risks recreating the same cycle of delayed transparency, public backlash, and eventual policy reversal.

Transportation by Omission: The Conversation They Didn’t Have

Since the Legislature last met, the transportation landscape has shifted dramatically. The transportation package passed in the emergency session has formally qualified for a ballot referendum. Gov. Kotek has publicly called for its repeal in advance of that vote, while Republican lawmakers — including those who supported referring the package to the ballot — are now crying foul, arguing the Legislature should not repeal a law voters are poised to consider.

At the same time, reporting has revealed that the estimated cost of the I-5 bridge project has nearly doubled, further intensifying scrutiny around transportation funding and governance.

Against that backdrop, one would reasonably expect transportation committees to spend significant time grappling with those issues: sorting through the ballot referral, the governor’s repeal call, the escalating cost of the I-5 bridge, and the political fallout surrounding all three. Instead, committee discussions focused on comparatively mundane topics such as passenger rail service and long-range planning concepts, while neither of the two 800-pound gorillas in the room was addressed.

In a moment when transportation may be among the most volatile policy arenas in Oregon politics, the decision to sidestep those debates was itself a signal. Not one of resolution or momentum, but of caution, deferral, and unresolved conflict. And the hardest questions are still waiting offstage.

Did the Governor’s Prosperity Roadmap Show Up?

One of the most closely watched questions heading into Organizational Days was whether Governor Kotek’s newly announced Prosperity Roadmap would meaningfully surface or remain largely rhetorical.

It did show up, but in a measured, early-stage form.

Committees received an informational briefing outlining the Roadmap’s diagnosis: slowing population growth, elevated unemployment, and business outmigration. The proposed response centers on retaining and growing businesses, accelerating job creation, and modernizing economic development tools.

The legislative concepts introduced were tangible but targeted: fast-track permitting for large projects, permit audits to streamline timelines, investments in industrial site readiness, and updates to enterprise zones aimed particularly at rural and smaller communities.

What is notable is not what’s included, but what isn’t. There is no sweeping funding package, no immediate structural overhaul, and no near-term reset of Oregon’s cost structure. Instead, the Roadmap appears positioned as scaffolding: organizing government, identifying barriers, and laying groundwork rather than delivering immediate transformation.

For supporters, this reflects pragmatism. For skeptics and those within the business community, it reinforces the central question: how real, how durable, and how operational this initiative will ultimately become.

The Signal Beneath the Surface

Legislative leaders are signaling a willingness to manage complexity rather than unwind it, to study and position rather than fully resolve, and in some cases, to delegate decisions that carry significant political consequence.

Whether that strategy produces stability or volatility will depend not on intent, but on execution and on how long accountability can remain deferred before the public demands it back.

There may be 26 letters in the alphabet, but when it comes to the Republican primary for governor, the Ds have it.

Christine Drazan, the Republican nominee in 2022, has been considered the front-runner for a cage-match rematch with incumbent Governor Tina Kotek, but a couple of other D’s may soon be added to the card — specifically, Diehl and Dudley.

Rep. Ed Diehl, who has gained an enhanced public presence since he helped spearhead the referendum to repeal the legislature’s gas tax bill, is about to announce a challenge to Drazan in the Republican primary, according to sources at The Political Center.

Chris Dudley, the former Trail Blazer and the party’s nominee in 2010, is still on the edge of jumping in, and our sources say he will likely announce his plans in the next few days.

That would add a little excitement to the Republican primary, with Drazan, Dudley, Diehl, and (Danielle) Bethell all fighting for pole position in a four-way race.

Diehl, Dudley, and Bethell are set to appear together at the Western Liberty Conference next week on Jantzen Beach. Drazan appears to have made a strategic decision not to appear, much as she did during the Republican Dorchester Conference in 2022.

While Diehl’s name recognition doesn’t rival that of Drazan, the organizational skills he demonstrated — defying all odds to collect 200,000 referendum signatures using almost entirely volunteers — suggest he could build a formidable organization very quickly.

Dudley may not have that in his toolbox, but indications from those he has met with suggest that he would have access to plenty of campaign cash if he decides to take the leap. Dudley narrowly lost to John Kitzhaber in 2010 and came closer than any Republican to winning the governor’s race in nearly 40 years.

Danielle Bethell, currently a Marion County commissioner, learned from Diehl of his upcoming candidacy and admitted she was a bit surprised.

“Ed and I are friends. He never mentioned before that he was contemplating doing this. But then again, Christine told me a long time ago she wasn’t planning to run. It goes to show that in politics, you never know,” she said.

Drazan captured the Republican nomination in 2022 with only 22% of the vote in a crowded primary race. But none of her opponents were as formidable as the slate she may face in May.

The next few weeks will find the candidates calculating how the newly crowded field impacts their ability to secure a winning plurality in the primary. Core values won’t separate them. Convincing Republican voters that they are the best candidate who can win in November will provide the winning edge.