HB 4147
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
The measure directs the Oregon Health Authority, collaborating with the Department of Human Services and the Employment Department, to produce an annual aggregated report on the number, distribution, and cost of state medical assistance provided to employees of large employers (500 or more in-state). It mandates trend analysis starting in fiscal year 2028, requires public publication within ten days, prohibits naming employers or disclosing employee personally identifiable or protected health information, and sets an operative date of January 1, 2027. The text creates no new eligibility rules, fees, or coverage mandates.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure may aim to quantify the public subsidy burden on large employers whose workers rely on Oregon Health Plan coverage, potentially informing future legislative budget decisions or policy adjustments regarding employer-sponsored insurance thresholds. This inference is drawn from the explicit requirement to track aggregated costs and recipient counts by employer size and industry.
Basis: Inferred · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Primary reporting and coordination obligations; must establish interagency data-sharing protocols and publish annual reports on a strict timeline.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Indirectly affected as data will be aggregated by employer size and industry; names are legally prohibited from the report.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Their coverage and employment status will be collected and published in aggregate form, subject to strict HIPAA-aligned privacy constraints.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Receive annual reports for policy analysis, budget planning, and trend monitoring.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Agencies must implement secure data-sharing mechanisms across three departments, constrained by existing federal privacy regulations. The 500-employee threshold limits direct data collection scope to a small subset of large entities, reducing administrative burden on most Oregon businesses. No new costs, eligibility changes, or enforcement actions are created for individuals or employers.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Legislature / Policy Planners
If trend analysis reveals a sharp, industry-specific increase in OHP costs tied to specific employer sectors, the Legislature could use the data to negotiate targeted workforce health initiatives or adjust Medicaid expansion parameters without disrupting coverage.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Large Employers / Policy Environment
If aggregated cost data is misinterpreted as evidence of employer 'free-riding,' it could spur politically motivated legislation imposing new reporting fees or coverage mandates on large employers, despite the bill's explicit anonymity safeguards.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
The text legally permits only aggregated, anonymized reporting bound by federal HIPAA privacy regulations. Weak enforcement of the 'no employer name' rule could allow indirect identification through small industry/region combinations. Agencies could also misclassify independent contractors as employees to inflate recipient counts, violating privacy statutes and exceeding the measure's scope.
Sources · House Amendments to Introduced
The measure trades enhanced legislative visibility into public health subsidy costs for strict privacy protections that prevent granular employer accountability or targeted policy intervention. Upsides include transparent data for budget planning; downsides include limited actionable granularity and no direct mechanism to address coverage gaps.
Provides standardized, longitudinal data on public health expenditures tied to employment patterns, supporting evidence-based budget allocation.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Aggregated reporting and strict anonymity limits the Legislature's ability to identify specific employer practices or implement targeted coverage solutions.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
The current House Amendments to Introduced version is substantively identical to the A-Engrossed version. It replaces the prior text with an identical reporting framework, definitions, and timelines, with the only textual change being the removal of a reference to amending ORS 657.665 from the bill title/catchline.
Removal of outdated statutory reference in the catchline; no substantive policy, definition, or procedural changes.
neutral
Sources · House Amendments to Introduced; A-Engrossed
Tradeoff: The measure trades enhanced legislative visibility into public health subsidy costs for strict privacy protections that prevent granular employer accountability or targeted policy intervention. Upsides include transparent data for budget planning; downsides include limited actionable granularity and no direct mechanism to address coverage gaps.
high confidence. The analysis is grounded exclusively in the provided bill text and official legislative fiscal/revenue impact statements. No external speculation or unverified claims are included.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
The amendment would replace the current broad definition of "employee" with a narrower one requiring at least 30 hours per week of remuneration and explicitly excluding independent contractors. If adopted, this change would alter which workers are counted in the Oregon Health Authority’s annual medical assistance reporting, likely reducing tracked recipient volumes by excluding part-time workers under 30 hours and gig/independent contractors, while leaving eligibility for benefits unchanged.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Amendment -AMR11 — proposed amendment; House Amendments to Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The explicit addition of a 30-hour weekly threshold and the exclusion of independent contractors suggests an intent to align reporting with traditional, substantial employment relationships rather than marginal or nontraditional work arrangements. This could aim to focus legislative data collection on workers with more stable employer ties or reduce administrative complexity by narrowing the tracked population.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -AMR11 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
Must adjust data collection methodologies and interagency agreements to apply the new 30-hour threshold and exclude independent contractors from recipient counts before the January 1, 2027 operative date.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: House Amendments to Introduced; Amendment -AMR11 — proposed amendment
Would no longer be categorized as "employees" in state medical assistance tracking, affecting how their coverage utilization is aggregated and attributed to employer size or industry.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -AMR11 — proposed amendment
Would see shifts in reported medical assistance costs and recipient distributions tied to their workforce composition, particularly regarding part-time and contractor classifications.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
Agencies will need to update rules and data-sharing protocols to filter recipients by hours worked and employment classification. Fiscal impact remains minimal per official analysis, but administrative adjustments may be required. Eligibility for medical assistance is unchanged; only reporting categorization shifts. Enforcement risks include misclassification of workers leading to inaccurate data aggregation.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; House Amendments to Introduced
Large flexible-workforce employers
A large employer with a highly flexible workforce could see its reported medical assistance costs drop significantly if many part-time or contract workers fall below the 30-hour threshold, potentially shielding it from future legislative scrutiny targeting high-cost employers.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Amendment -AMR11 — proposed amendment; House Amendments to Introduced
Sectors reliant on consistent part-time labor
A sector reliant on consistent part-time labor could have its workforce's medical assistance costs statistically erased from employer-level tracking, obscuring systemic coverage gaps and hindering targeted policy interventions for working families.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Amendment -AMR11 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary B
The amendment's narrow definition creates a structural incentive for reclassification that falls outside the law's intent but remains legally permissible under current classification frameworks.
Sources · Amendment -AMR11 — proposed amendment; House Amendments to Introduced
Narrowing the definition improves reporting clarity for traditional employment but risks obscuring the true scale of medical assistance utilization among part-time and nontraditional workers. Upsides include reduced administrative complexity and focus on substantial employment relationships; downsides include potential undercounting of vulnerable working populations and distorted employer-level cost data.
Reduces administrative burden by focusing data collection on workers with more stable, substantial employment ties.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -AMR11 — proposed amendment
Aligns reporting thresholds with traditional full-time or substantial part-time work, potentially simplifying employer-level cost attribution.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Staff Measure Summary B
Excludes part-time workers under 30 hours and independent contractors from tracking, potentially masking systemic coverage gaps for working families.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -AMR11 — proposed amendment
May distort employer-level cost data if large employers rely heavily on excluded worker categories, complicating future policy or funding decisions.
Basis: Bill text · Source: House Amendments to Introduced
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied amendment text, current bill text, and official staff/fiscal summaries. No external speculation or legislative intent assumptions are used.
If adopted, the amendment would raise the employer size threshold for data collection from 50 to 500 employees, add a 30-hours-per-week minimum work requirement for the definition of employee, remove the mandate to publish specific employer names and their health benefit plan status, shift the reporting deadline to January 15 for state fiscal year data, and delete the proposed amendment to Oregon’s employment department confidentiality statute. The measure would still require the Oregon Health Authority to track and report aggregated medical assistance costs and recipient counts by industry, region, and employer size, but with significantly less granular, identifiable data.
Basis: Stakeholder claim · Sources: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely aims to reduce administrative burden on mid-sized employers and limit public disclosure of specific employer data by raising the reporting threshold and removing names, while still preserving aggregate trend analysis for policy planning.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
No longer subject to the data collection framework tied to this measure, reducing compliance costs and privacy exposure.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Remain subject to aggregated reporting but face less granular scrutiny regarding specific health plan status or named recipient counts.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Explicitly excluded from the core employee definition, meaning their medical assistance usage will not be tracked under the primary metrics, though independent contractor counts are separately collected.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Must reconfigure data collection systems to align with the new threshold and reporting cycle.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Agencies must establish interagency data-sharing protocols to filter records by hours worked and employer size before the January 1, 2027 operative date. Employers above the threshold will face no direct compliance burden since the report is aggregated and anonymized. Official analyses confirm minimal fiscal impact and no revenue impact for state or local governments. Public access to specific employer-level medical assistance costs and health plan coverage details is eliminated, shifting focus to statewide demographic and industry trends.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A; Revenue Impact Statement A
Large rural employer
A large retail chain with 600 employees in a rural region uses the aggregated trend data to identify high medical assistance recipient rates among part-time workers, prompting voluntary expansion of subsidized health coverage to reduce turnover and state subsidy costs.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Cluster of mid-sized employers
A cluster of mid-sized employers collectively employs thousands of low-wage workers who rely on medical assistance. Because they fall below the 500 threshold, their concentrated impact on state healthcare spending remains invisible in the report, delaying targeted policy interventions or employer subsidy incentives.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
inference
Sources · Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
The measure trades granular, identifiable employer data and broader coverage thresholds for reduced administrative burden and enhanced privacy, which may obscure localized impacts on mid-sized employers and part-time workers while preserving statewide trend analysis. Upsides include lower compliance costs, stronger privacy protections, and clearer focus on aggregate fiscal trends. Downsides include loss of transparency regarding specific large or mid-sized employers and potential blind spots for concentrated low-wage employment patterns.
Lower administrative burden for mid-sized employers and reduced public disclosure of sensitive corporate data.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Stronger privacy protections through removal of employer names and health plan status requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Loss of transparency regarding specific large or mid-sized employers and their health coverage practices.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
Potential blind spots for concentrated low-wage employment patterns that fall below the 500-employee threshold.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -5 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the provided proposed amendment text, introduced bill text for context, and official legislative revenue/fiscal statements. No external speculation or unverified claims are included.
The amendment would require the Oregon Health Authority to produce an annual report on medical assistance costs and recipient counts tied to employers with 500 or more employees, explicitly excluding tribal governments, while removing prior provisions that would have amended employment department confidentiality statutes and collecting detailed wage/hours data. If adopted, it shifts the reporting burden to fewer, larger entities, alters the scope of data collected on medical assistance utilization, and eliminates a proposed expansion of statutory confidentiality protections for employment records.
Basis: Stakeholder claim · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The threshold increase from 50 to 500 employees, combined with the removal of ORS 657.665 amendments and granular wage data collection, indicates a legislative intent to reduce administrative burdens on mid-sized employers while retaining visibility into high-cost medical assistance utilization among the largest workforce participants.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Must annually report aggregated medical assistance recipient counts and associated costs for their workforce and dependents; exempt from the previously proposed amendments to employment department confidentiality statutes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Explicitly excluded from the reporting definition of employer, preserving autonomy over tribal workforce data collection under Oregon law.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Responsible for interagency data aggregation, HIPAA-compliant analysis, and annual submission of demographic, cost, and trend reports to legislative committees.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Receive aggregated statewide medical assistance utilization data, top-employer summaries, and trend analyses starting in fiscal year 2028.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Covered employers must coordinate with human resources and payroll systems to identify medical assistance enrollment among employees and dependents, then calculate associated state costs for annual reporting.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Official analyses indicate minimal direct fiscal impact on state or local revenues, but agencies and covered employers will incur administrative costs for data aggregation, system updates, and compliance verification.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement MRB
Reports are strictly prohibited from containing personally identifiable or protected health information. Data handling must comply with federal HIPAA regulations, limiting granular public access while preserving interagency analytical utility.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Although the amendment incorporates definitions referencing ORS 181A.940 and federal recognition status for tribal governments, the reporting obligation and data framework remain exclusively an Oregon statutory change.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Covered employers and state budget planners
A covered employer with over 500 employees uses the aggregated cost and demographic data to redesign benefits packages, successfully reducing its workforce's medical assistance enrollment by a significant margin and lowering state expenditures.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
State policy accuracy and workforce participants
An employer systematically reclassifies full-time roles as independent contractor positions or splits operations across multiple legal entities to remain below the 500-employee threshold, resulting in unreported medical assistance costs and distorted policy planning.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
The text legally permits aggregated reporting of medical assistance utilization tied to employer size. Weak enforcement or misclassification could allow entities to restructure workforces to evade the threshold, potentially leading to duty creep where agencies pressure non-covered entities to voluntarily report or where data is repurposed for regulatory scrutiny beyond its intended medical assistance tracking scope.
Sources · Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
The measure trades comprehensive workforce and mid-sized employer visibility for reduced administrative burden on smaller businesses and explicit tribal sovereignty protections, while prioritizing aggregated cost tracking over granular wage and benefits analysis. Upsides include lower compliance costs for most employers, clearer focus on high-impact medical assistance utilization, and preserved tribal autonomy. Downsides include loss of data on mid-sized employers and detailed compensation metrics, removal of proposed employment record confidentiality updates, and potential blind spots in medical assistance cost drivers.
Lower compliance costs for most employers
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Clearer focus on high-impact medical assistance utilization
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Preserved tribal autonomy
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Loss of data on mid-sized employers and detailed compensation metrics
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Removal of proposed employment record confidentiality updates
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Potential blind spots in medical assistance cost drivers
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text and official fiscal/staff summaries. No external speculation is used.
If adopted, the amendment would replace the original bill’s detailed employer-specific reporting and confidentiality exemptions with a streamlined mandate requiring the Oregon Health Authority to produce an annual, aggregated report on medical assistance costs for employees and dependents of large employers (500+ workers), effective January 1, 2027. It removes the requirement to publish employer names or wage data, eliminates the amendment to ORS 657.665, and shifts the reporting period from calendar to state fiscal years.
Basis: Stakeholder claim · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely aims to reduce employer privacy concerns and administrative burden by removing individually identifiable data collection and confidentiality exemptions, while retaining aggregate cost tracking for policy analysis.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Must coordinate data collection and produce an annual aggregated report by June 30, starting January 1, 2027. Administrative burden is reduced due to the removal of detailed employer-specific reporting requirements and the elimination of drafting new confidentiality exemptions for ORS 657.665.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
No longer subject to mandatory disclosure of names, industry codes, or wage data tied to medical assistance usage. Privacy protections are strengthened by the explicit prohibition on naming employers or disclosing personally identifiable or protected health information.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Their health and employment data will be aggregated; no individual identification risk from this report. Aggregate cost tracking may inform future policy decisions affecting program eligibility, funding allocations, or employer coverage mandates.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Receives less granular data on specific employers but retains statewide trend analysis capability (post-July 1, 2028) to evaluate medical assistance utilization patterns among working populations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Agencies must establish interagency agreements and adopt rules for data aggregation, privacy compliance, and secure storage before the January 1, 2027 operative date.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Fiscal impact is minimal; costs shift to agency administrative setup rather than employer compliance or public disclosure infrastructure.
Basis: Stakeholder claim · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement MRB
Public access is limited to aggregated, anonymized data. Risk of misclassification (e.g., defining employee versus contractor) could skew aggregate counts, though the amendment itself does not specify a hours-worked threshold.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Large Retailer or Healthcare Provider
A major employer with widespread OHP enrollment among part-time workers uses the aggregated trend data to voluntarily expand employer-sponsored coverage, reducing state Medicaid costs without facing public scrutiny, regulatory penalties, or reputational risk from individualized reporting.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Rural County Health Authority or Agency Analyst
An agency misinterprets aggregated reporting to include de facto identifiable subsets (e.g., isolating a single dominant employer in a rural county), violating the privacy prohibition and triggering legal challenges under HIPAA or ORS 192.556, despite the text's explicit ban on naming employers.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
inference
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
The measure trades granular employer-level transparency for enhanced privacy and reduced administrative burden, which may limit precise policy targeting while protecting covered entities from public disclosure.
Stronger privacy safeguards reduce legal exposure for employers and recipients.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Lower compliance costs streamline agency operations and focus resources on trend analysis rather than data collection.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Reduced accountability for specific high-utilization employers may obscure localized coverage disparities.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Aggregate data gaps could hinder targeted policy interventions or workforce development planning.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
high confidence. Analysis is grounded in the explicit text of the proposed amendment, official legislative revenue and fiscal impact statements, and staff measure summaries. No enacted provisions or external litigation are assumed.
The proposed amendment would require the Oregon Health Authority, in coordination with the Department of Human Services and the Employment Department, to annually report aggregated data on the number and cost of medical assistance recipients who work for large private employers (500 or more employees) in Oregon. If adopted, it would shift legislative oversight from individual employer reporting to industry-level cost tracking, explicitly exclude tribal governments and independent contractors from covered employers, and mandate trend analysis starting in fiscal year 2028.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure may aim to monitor state expenditures for public health coverage among large private-sector workforces to inform future policy on employer contribution structures or subsidy eligibility. This hypothesis is derived from the amendment’s focus on calculating the cost of providing medical assistance to employees, distributing data by employer size and industry, and establishing trend analysis starting in 2028.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment
Their aggregated workforce health coverage costs will be tracked by industry and region, though their names will remain confidential in public reports. No direct compliance burden is imposed.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment
Their eligibility-based coverage costs will be aggregated and analyzed alongside employment metrics, potentially influencing future policy adjustments to the Oregon Health Plan.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment
They will bear the obligation to establish interagency data-sharing protocols, ensure HIPAA compliance, and produce annual reports by June 30.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment
They will receive annual aggregated reports to guide policy and fiscal decisions regarding public health coverage.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment
Agencies must develop secure, HIPAA-compliant data-matching systems to link employment/wage records with medical assistance claims across three departments.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment
The report’s prohibition on naming employers or disclosing PII/PHI limits granular accountability but ensures privacy.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment
Policy makers will gain visibility into the fiscal impact of public health coverage on large workforces, which could inform future Medicaid funding decisions or workforce benefit discussions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment
State policymakers and public health stakeholders
Aggregated data reveals a specific industry where large employers consistently rely on public coverage for low-wage workers, enabling targeted legislative action to reduce state costs and improve worker stability through subsidized employer contributions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment
Employers and affected workers
Media or political actors misinterpret aggregated cost data as evidence of systemic employer free-riding, triggering punitive policy proposals that force abrupt coverage reductions or layoffs across multiple sectors despite the data only reflecting eligibility-based public assistance.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment
The law restricts naming employers and disclosing PII/PHI but does not mandate statistical disclosure controls that prevent re-identification in small or specialized industry groups.
Sources · Amendment -9 — proposed amendment
The measure trades enhanced transparency into public health coverage costs among large employers for increased administrative coordination and potential political scrutiny of employer benefit practices. Upsides include evidence-based policy formulation and fiscal accountability for the Oregon Health Plan. Downsides include complex interagency data-matching requirements, risk of data misinterpretation driving reactive policy, and limited granular accountability due to anonymity mandates.
Informs evidence-based policy on Medicaid/CHIP sustainability and workforce benefits.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment
Provides longitudinal trend data to track shifts in public coverage reliance among large workforces.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment
Requires complex interagency data-matching and HIPAA compliance protocols.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment
Aggregated cost data may be misinterpreted as employer misconduct, prompting reactive policy that harms business operations or triggers layoffs.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -9 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text, staff summaries, and fiscal impact statements. No enacted provisions or external speculation are included.
The amendment replaces the original bill’s requirement to individually identify and report on employers with 50 or more employees with a narrower mandate requiring the Oregon Health Authority, in coordination with two other state agencies, to publish an annual aggregated report on medical assistance costs for employees of employers with 500 or more workers. It eliminates employer naming, removes detailed workforce and health plan data collection, shifts the reporting deadline to June 30, deletes a confidentiality amendment to existing employment department law, and sets an operative date of January 1, 2027. If adopted, the measure would significantly reduce direct compliance burdens on mid-sized businesses while focusing legislative oversight exclusively on the largest public health cost contributors through anonymized, trend-based data.
Basis: Stakeholder claim · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment was likely drafted to reduce administrative and compliance burdens on mid-sized employers while addressing committee concerns regarding data privacy, the practical utility of granular employer-level reporting, and the feasibility of interagency data sharing.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A
Exempted from individual identification and detailed data reporting. Only the top 20 employers by recipient count may be referenced anonymously by industry, size, and cost. Compliance burden is substantially reduced compared to the original bill.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Tasked with establishing interagency data-sharing agreements, aggregating employment and health eligibility records, producing annual reports by June 30, and publishing them online. Must ensure all data handling complies with federal HIPAA privacy regulations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Their health and employment data will be aggregated for state trend analysis. No personally identifiable or protected health information will be disclosed, preserving privacy but limiting individual-level policy targeting.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Receives anonymized, aggregated data focused on cost trends and the top 20 highest-cost employers. Gains macro-level insight into public health expenditures but loses granular visibility into mid-sized employer practices, regional disparities, and dependent coverage patterns.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Agencies must legally bind themselves to interagency agreements that permit sharing employment, wage, and health eligibility data while strictly adhering to HIPAA and state privacy statutes. The report will focus on aggregated costs and recipient counts rather than individual employer compliance or dependent coverage.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Official legislative revenue and fiscal impact statements classify the measure as having no revenue impact and minimal expenditure impact. Agency costs will be absorbed through existing staff, interagency coordination, and data aggregation systems rather than new appropriations.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: IS_Impact HB 4147 4; Fiscal Impact Statement A
No new enforcement mechanisms or penalties are created. Compliance relies on existing interagency data-sharing frameworks and federal HIPAA regulations. The removal of the ORS 657.665 amendment eliminates a specific statutory confidentiality layer that was originally proposed for employment department records.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Legislature and public policymakers
The Legislature uses the aggregated trend data to successfully negotiate a targeted federal Medicaid waiver or state premium assistance program that reduces OHP costs for working families by incentivizing the top 20 highest-cost employers to expand affordable coverage, achieving significant budget savings without triggering employer privacy litigation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Legislature and public policymakers
Aggregated reporting masks severe regional or industry-specific disparities in medical assistance costs, leading to misallocation of state health resources and failure to address localized workforce retention crises or public health emergencies tied to specific mid-sized employers that fall below the 500-employee threshold.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
The text legally permits only anonymized aggregation and top-20 industry reporting. Unlawful outcomes would stem from external factors like inadequate privacy controls, re-identification techniques applied to small-sample aggregates, or administrative overreach beyond the statutory threshold.
Sources · Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
The measure trades granular employer-level accountability and comprehensive workforce data for reduced administrative burden, enhanced privacy protections, and a narrower focus on the largest public health cost contributors.
Lowers compliance costs and reporting friction for mid-sized businesses that would otherwise face individual identification requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Strengthens privacy safeguards by explicitly prohibiting employer naming and mandating HIPAA compliance across all data handling.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Focuses legislative attention on the highest-cost contributors, potentially streamlining policy interventions toward the most impactful employers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Obscures industry-specific or regional disparities in medical assistance costs, limiting the legislature's ability to design targeted workforce or insurance affordability interventions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Eliminates direct employer identification (except top 20) and removes dependent coverage data, reducing transparency around how public health costs are distributed across the private sector.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
Relies entirely on interagency data-sharing agreements and existing privacy statutes without creating new enforcement mechanisms, leaving implementation vulnerable to administrative delays or coordination failures.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -8 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text, official fiscal/revenue impact statements, and staff measure summaries. No external speculation or unverified claims are included.
The proposed amendment replaces the original bill’s requirement to annually identify specific large employers (50+ employees) and report on their dependents’ medical assistance usage with a mandate for the Oregon Health Authority to publish aggregated, anonymized data on medical assistance costs for employees of very large employers (500+ employees). If adopted, it would eliminate employer naming, remove dependent tracking, shift the reporting deadline to June 30, and require trend analysis starting in fiscal year 2028.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely aims to reduce administrative friction for mid-sized businesses and address privacy concerns by removing employer names and dependent data, while still providing the legislature with macro-level cost tracking for the largest employers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Bears primary responsibility for data aggregation, trend analysis, and public publication of reports.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Subject to aggregated cost tracking but exempt from the original bill’s granular reporting requirements that would have named them or tracked dependents.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Receive anonymized, aggregated data and trend analyses rather than named employer lists or dependent utilization metrics.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Indirectly affected by how aggregated cost data informs future OHP funding and policy decisions, though their personal information remains legally protected.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
OHA must establish interagency data-sharing protocols with DHS and the Employment Department to calculate aggregated medical assistance costs by employer size, industry, and region. Employers face no new direct compliance duties beyond existing Medicaid cost attribution mechanisms.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
The Legislative Revenue Office and Fiscal Office note minimal fiscal impact and no revenue impact. Eligibility for medical assistance remains unchanged; the measure only alters data reporting.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Revenue Impact Statement A
Reports must exclude employer names and all PII/PHI, limiting public access to granular employer-level accountability but enhancing privacy compliance with federal HIPAA regulations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
State policymakers and OHP budget planners
OHA successfully isolates a systemic cost driver among the top 20 employers, enabling targeted policy interventions that reduce OHP expenditures without triggering employer litigation or privacy violations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Legislature and mid-sized employers
Aggregated reporting masks significant medical assistance costs concentrated in mid-sized employers (50–499 employees), leading legislators to misallocate resources and overlook a major coverage gap affecting vulnerable workers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
The statute restricts disclosure but does not mandate independent audits of how aggregated subsets are handled, creating a gap where indirect identification or mission creep could occur without explicit statutory guardrails.
Sources · Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
The measure trades granular employer accountability and dependent coverage tracking for stronger privacy safeguards, reduced administrative burden on mid-sized businesses, and a focus on macro-level cost trends.
Streamlined reporting reduces friction for employers and aligns data collection with federal HIPAA privacy standards.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Macro-level trend analysis may improve long-term OHP budget forecasting by isolating cost drivers among the largest employers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Reduced transparency eliminates employer naming and dependent tracking, potentially obscuring coverage gaps or cost drivers in the 50–499 employee segment.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
Delayed trend analysis until fiscal year 2028 limits near-term policy responsiveness to shifting medical assistance utilization patterns.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -7 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text, staff summaries, and official fiscal/revenue impact statements. No external speculation or unverified claims are included.
Decision brief generation failed. The existing briefs were preserved and this version can be retried.
If adopted, the amendment would require state agencies to produce an annual report tracking medical assistance enrollment and costs among employees and dependents of employers with 500 or more workers in Oregon, explicitly exclude tribal governments from the reporting definition, remove prior provisions altering Employment Department confidentiality rules, mandate HIPAA-compliant data handling, and set an operative date of January 1, 2027.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely narrows the reporting scope to very large employers and clarifies tribal sovereignty exemptions while aligning data handling with federal privacy standards.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Must provide aggregated medical assistance enrollment and cost data to state agencies for annual reporting.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Explicitly exempted from the employer definition, avoiding data collection obligations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Bear administrative responsibility to collect, aggregate, and publish anonymized medical assistance data tied to employer size, industry, and region.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Subject to aggregated demographic and cost tracking without individually identifiable information.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Employers will coordinate with state agencies to supply enrollment and cost data; agencies must establish secure, HIPAA-compliant data-sharing protocols.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Official analyses indicate minimal fiscal impact, but administrative costs for data aggregation and compliance will fall on state agencies.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Public access is limited to aggregated, anonymized reports; HIPAA requirements reduce individual privacy risks but may complicate interagency data workflows.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
State policymakers and public health planners
The state gains precise, longitudinal data on how large employers' coverage decisions impact Medicaid costs, enabling targeted policy interventions or subsidy adjustments without disrupting employer operations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Large employers and affected employees
A major employer faces operational disruption or legal exposure if state data requests inadvertently capture protected health information or conflict with existing HIPAA or business confidentiality rules, despite the amendment's safeguards.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
The amendment restricts reporting to aggregated metrics and mandates federal privacy compliance; however, inadequate oversight of interagency data transfers or misclassification of tribal entities could enable unauthorized disclosure or overreach.
Sources · Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
The measure balances enhanced state visibility into large-employer medical assistance costs against reduced administrative burden and clearer privacy/sovereignty boundaries for tribal governments and very large employers. Upsides include targeted policy insights and HIPAA-aligned privacy safeguards; downsides include potential data-sharing friction, delayed reporting timelines, and the loss of granular wage/hours tracking previously proposed.
Improved state capacity to monitor Medicaid utilization trends among high-wage or large-workforce sectors without imposing broad compliance mandates.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Explicit tribal exclusion and HIPAA alignment reduce legal ambiguity and privacy litigation risks for state agencies.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Raising the employer threshold to 500 excludes mid-sized businesses that may significantly influence local Medicaid enrollment, limiting policy granularity.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
Removing the prior ORS 657.665 amendment eliminates statutory confidentiality updates that may have been necessary for secure data sharing.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -4 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded in the explicit text of the proposed amendment and official legislative fiscal/revenue impact statements. No enacted provisions or external litigation are assumed.
The proposed amendment removes the measure’s statutory authority to amend Employment Department confidentiality rules, shifts the reporting cycle from calendar to state fiscal years, narrows required data points to employee/dependent counts and medical assistance costs, and sets an operative date of January 1, 2027. If adopted, it would require the Oregon Health Authority to produce annual aggregated reports on large employers whose workers or dependents receive state medical assistance, while eliminating detailed wage, hour, and employer-identifying data requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely aims to streamline interagency data collection by removing statutory conflicts with Employment Department confidentiality provisions and aligning reporting timelines with the state budget cycle, while focusing legislative visibility strictly on headcount and cost metrics rather than granular wage or employer identification.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Must coordinate with DHS and ED to extract, aggregate, and analyze medical assistance cost and headcount data for large employers; responsible for publishing the annual report by June 30.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Serve as data providers; ED’s existing confidentiality framework remains intact since the amendment deletes the proposed ORS 657.665 carve-out, potentially requiring reliance on interagency agreements rather than explicit statutory disclosure authority for this report.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Subject to aggregated reporting of employee/dependent medical assistance status and associated state costs; employer names, specific wage data, and hour categories are removed from the report requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Benefit from statutory privacy protections that prohibit disclosure of personally identifiable or protected health information in the published report.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Receive annual trend and cost data by June 30 to inform medical assistance, workforce, and employer-sponsored coverage policy decisions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Staff Measure Summary A
Data collection and aggregation will shift to state fiscal year tracking, aligning reporting with budget cycles but potentially obscuring calendar-year seasonal enrollment fluctuations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
OHA, DHS, and ED must formalize data-sharing protocols via interagency agreements; removing the ORS 657.665 amendment may create statutory ambiguity regarding ED’s obligation to share payroll or wage data for this specific report.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Fiscal impact is assessed as minimal to none by legislative revenue and fiscal offices; agency costs will be limited to staff time for data extraction, validation, and report drafting.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Fiscal Impact Statement MRB
Privacy compliance requires strict aggregation thresholds and de-identification protocols to prevent jigsaw identification when cross-referencing industry, region, and cost data.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
State Policy & Budget Planners
OHA uses the aggregated cost and headcount data to identify systemic underinsurance among specific industries, enabling targeted policy interventions that successfully shift eligible workers to employer-sponsored coverage and reduce long-term state medical assistance expenditures.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Interagency Operations & Legislative Oversight
Ambiguity over ED’s data-sharing authority without the ORS 657.665 amendment triggers prolonged interagency disputes or legal challenges, delaying data transfer for multiple years and rendering the report incomplete or unusable for legislative policy planning.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
inference
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The measure trades granular employer and wage data for streamlined fiscal-year reporting and reduced statutory confidentiality conflicts, prioritizing administrative feasibility over detailed market analysis.
Reduces interagency legal friction regarding Employment Department data privacy by removing the proposed ORS 657.665 amendment.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Aligns reporting timelines with state budget cycles, improving coordination with fiscal planning processes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Lowers compliance burden by removing employer name, wage, and hour data requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Limits legislative visibility into specific employer practices, wage dynamics, and hour categories that drive medical assistance enrollment.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
May obscure which employers are most reliant on public coverage, complicating targeted policy or incentive design.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Creates statutory ambiguity regarding ED’s obligation to share payroll data without the deleted confidentiality carve-out.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text, introduced bill text, and official legislative fiscal/revenue summaries. No external speculation or unverified claims are included.
The amendment removes the proposed changes to Employment Department data confidentiality rules, shifts the reporting period from a calendar year to a state fiscal year, narrows the required report data to recipient counts and costs for employees and dependents, and sets an operative date of January 1, 2027. If adopted, it would create a streamlined annual reporting requirement for the Oregon Health Authority on medical assistance costs tied to large employers while eliminating the need to amend existing employment data privacy statutes.
Basis: Stakeholder claim · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The amendment likely aims to reduce administrative complexity by aligning the reporting cycle with the state fiscal year and removing statutory conflicts with existing Employment Department confidentiality protections.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Must coordinate annual reporting on medical assistance costs for employees and dependents of large employers without amending existing employment confidentiality statutes; authorized to take pre-operative administrative actions before January 1, 2027.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Subject to aggregated data reporting requirements that track their workforce's use of state medical assistance and associated costs; exempt from providing detailed wage, hour, or demographic data under this amendment.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Benefit from continued privacy protections under existing ORS 657.665; receive aggregated, non-identifiable reporting on their coverage trends without direct employer data submission mandates.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Agencies will need to establish interagency data-sharing protocols for fiscal-year reporting without altering employment confidentiality statutes. Employers face reduced direct data submission burdens but remain subject to aggregated cost tracking. The shift to state fiscal years may delay initial data collection cycles compared to a calendar year baseline. Privacy safeguards under existing law remain intact, limiting direct employer liability or individual disclosure risks.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Introduced
State policymakers and public health agencies
Agencies successfully leverage streamlined fiscal-year reporting to identify systemic gaps in employer-sponsored coverage, leading to targeted policy interventions that reduce long-term medical assistance costs without triggering employer litigation over data privacy.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Legislative oversight and public health planning
Ambiguity in the narrowed data requirements leads to inconsistent agency interpretations of 'cost of providing medical assistance,' resulting in incomplete trend analysis and delayed legislative responses to rising public health program expenditures.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
The amendment strips the confidentiality statute amendment but retains broad interagency data access; without explicit classification boundaries, administrative discretion could expand beyond the measure's reporting purpose.
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Streamlining the reporting scope and aligning it with state fiscal cycles reduces administrative friction but sacrifices granular wage, demographic, and industry-specific data that could inform targeted policy interventions.
Preserved employment data privacy under existing statutes
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Lower compliance burdens for employers and agencies
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Alignment with state budgetary reporting periods
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Reduced analytical precision for future legislative decision-making
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential delays in identifying coverage gaps due to fiscal-year misalignment
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Loss of detailed wage and demographic trend data
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
high confidence. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the provided proposed amendment text, current bill context, and official fiscal/staff summaries. No external speculation or unverified claims are included.
35 records currently loaded
Records available in the current snapshot.
Earliest loaded signal
Introduced bill text posted
Posted Jan 28, 2026, 3:25 PM PST
Follow the official text for HB 4147 and every amendment branch. Connections come from each amendment's stated base. Horizontal position shows when each document was first posted, when available. Dotted links flag likely related proposals based on their text.
Click a card to isolate its connected lines; use View summary to jump to its details. Horizontal position shows first posting time in Pacific Time. Drag or use the arrow keys to pan. Pinch with two fingers on mobile, or zoom with the controls, +/− keys, or Control/Command + scroll; press 0 to reset. Dashed branches remained proposals. Dotted teal links are text-based early signals, not official amendment relationships.
Selected document summary
Substantial replacement
What the document says to change
Delete lines 9 through 17 and insert:
Official records (3)
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
Chief sponsors: Representative Jules Walters, House Majority Leader Ben Bowman, Senator Deb Patterson, Representative Travis Nelson, Senator Sara Gelser Blouin, Representative Rob Nosse
Regular sponsors: Representative Tom Andersen, Representative Paul Evans, Representative Lisa Fragala, Representative Dacia Grayber, Representative Nancy Nathanson, Representative Thuy Tran, Representative Lamar Wise, Senator Wlnsvey Campos, Senator Lew Frederick, Senator Jeff Golden, Senator Mark Meek, Senator Khanh Pham, Senator Lisa Reynolds, Senator Kathleen Taylor, Representative Sue Rieke Smith, Representative Mark Gamba
House carrier
Representative Jules Walters
Third Reading Of House Bills · Version A
A carrier presents the measure or report but is not necessarily its sponsor or author.
Records already listed in Activity are not repeated here.
Official origin records are incomplete; missing facts are not inferred.
The artifact has broad business or technology relevance, but it does not identify a concrete effect on Yex Labs LLC.
74% confidence · deterministic fallback
35 events
Full timeline
35 entries shown.
In committee upon adjournment.
Public Hearing and Work Session held.
Amendment -AMR11 proposed
IS_Impact HB 4147 A
Revenue Impact Statement
Referred to Rules.
First reading. Referred to President's desk.
Third reading. Carried by Walters. Passed.
Ayes, 35; Nays, 21--Breese-Iverson, Bunch, Cate, Diehl, Edwards, Elmer, Helfrich, Levy B, Lewis, Lively, Mannix, McIntire, Osborne, Owens, Reschke, Scharf, Skarlatos, Smith G, Wallan, Wright, Yunker; Absent, 3--Boice, Boshart Davis, Harbick; Excused, 1--Hartman.
Second reading.
House Amendments to Introduced bill text posted
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments and be printed A-Engrossed.
Work Session held.
Amendment -5 proposed
Amendment -4 proposed
Amendment -1 proposed
Amendment -9 proposed
IS_Impact HB 4147 8
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -8 adopted
Amendment -7 proposed
Amendment -5 proposed
IS_Impact HB 4147 4
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -4 proposed
Amendment -1 proposed
Public Hearing held.
Amendment -1 proposed
Referred to Rules.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
“Digest: The Act tells the Oregon Health Authority to create a report about large employers that have employees who get health care from the state. Takes effect 91 days after the session ends. (Flesch Readability Score: 66.3). Requires the Oregon Health Authority to collaborate with the Department of Human Services and the Employment Department to submit an annual report that [ identifies ] provides information about employers that employ [ 50 ] 500 or more employees in this state and [ that ] have employees [ or dependents of the employees ] who are medical assistance recipients. Takes effect on the 91st day following adjournment sine die.”
Oregon updates this record in place. This page uses the latest text; an exact original snapshot is unavailable.
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.