Skip to main content
This story was produced by the Oregon Journalism Project, a nonprofit newsroom covering the state.
The Legislative Counsel’s Office has told Sen. Lisa Reynolds (D-Portland) that her sponsorship of a bill that would benefit her financially does not constitute a conflict of interest.
That’s because if the bill passes, it would benefit a class of people—pediatricians and internists who own independent practices—and not just Reynolds, a shareholder in the Children’s Clinic, a pediatric practice in Southwest Portland.
As the Oregon Journalism Project reported earlier, Reynolds sponsored Senate Bill 28, which would require that primary care physicians at independent practices be reimbursed at the same rate as doctors at nearby hospitals. Reynolds told her colleagues on the Senate Health Care Committee that she and other independent providers currently get reimbursed far less than hospital-based physicians for similar work.
Her bill would require private insurers—not the Oregon Health Plan, which administers the state’s Medicaid program—to pay the higher rate. Reynolds shared her personal concerns with her colleagues on the Senate Health Care Committee.
“I’m trying to save my practice and other independent practices, which we know are cost-effective ways to provide primary care,” Reynolds said at an April 8 hearing, although she later told OJP that description was “hyperbolic.”
As the Oregon Capital Chronicle first reported, Reynolds asked the Oregon Government Ethics Commission for advice on whether she needed to declare a conflict of interest. The OGEC referred Reynolds to the Legislative Counsel’s Office.
In a May 16 response, the Capital Chronicle subsequently reported, a lawyer in the Legislative Counsel’s Office told Reynolds that although she would benefit if the measure passed, many others would also, and thus she qualified for a “class exemption” from conflict of interest rules.
“Because you are a pediatrician who provides pediatric health care at a clinic that, as a professional corporation, is wholly owned by providers, we conclude that you both could and would likely realize a pecuniary benefit under the policy set forth under SB 28,” wrote Wenzel J. Cummings, a lawyer in the Legislative Counsel’s Office.
But the class exemption makes that benefit moot.
“Although Senate Rule 3.33 (1) would otherwise require you to announce an actual or potential conflict of interest under SB 28 prior to voting on the measure, because you are a member of the smaller class of primary care providers who would be permitted the reimbursement rate under the terms of SB 28,” Wenzel concluded, “you are excluded from the obligations to announce a conflict of interest.”
SB 28 is currently in the Joint Ways and Means Committee.