January 30, 2023

Volume XIII, Number 30


January 27, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

The “State” of Telehealth: Oregon

Oregon Telehealth Bill Proposes Parity for Telehealth Services

On January 11, 2021, Oregon Senator Lee Beyer and Rep. Rachel Prusak, introduced Senate Bill 11 (“SB11”)[1], which would permanently extend parity for telehealth services with in-clinic care services. Parity for telehealth services was originally proposed in response to Governor Kate Brown’s March 23, 2020 Executive Order 20-22 which ordered a temporary halt on nonurgent procedures to preserve personal protective gear for frontline workers. Telehealth services provided clinical providers with an opportunity to maintain revenue by allowing individuals to seek care from the safety of their own homes. In line with the move to telehealth services, emergency payment policies enacted by the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services and payers’ voluntary agreement allowed providers to receive the same rates for telemedicine services as they would for in-clinic services.

SB11, along with its companion legislation, HB2508, in the Oregon House of Representatives,   has received strong support from medical providers, like Rep. Prusak, a Board Certified Registered Nurse and Family Nurse Practitioner, who believe that by extending parity for telehealth services, the state will “be able to reach, and extend access, to citizens in rural and urban areas with mobility issues”.  SB11 follows recent trends to make permanent changes to telehealth exceptions allowed during the public health emergency (the “Pandemic”), as discussed in our December 7, 2020 Blog Post, “Permanent Expansion of Medicare Telehealth Services” and recent “State” of Telehealth blog series.

Notwithstanding the strong support for SB11 in the healthcare provider community, healthcare payers and insurers have expressed concern regarding the increased costs attendant to reimbursing a “virtual” patient telehealth visits at the same level that in-person visits are reimbursed.[2]  For example, Kristen Downey, Senior Manager, Digital Advocacy and Government Affairs, Providence St. Joseph Health, Oregon, suggests that reimbursing telehealth services – which may include phone calls, emails and texts between patients and providers – at the same level that in-office/in-person patient care visits are reimbursed would increase payer costs without a concomitant increase in value.[3]  In response, those in support of SB11 note that while telehealth services are different from in-person services – even SB11’s sponsor, Senator Pursak, aknolwedges that telehealth is not appropriate in all situations – the main purpose of SB11 is to create flexibility for citizens looking to receive medical services.

Should SB11 be passed, Oregon would join states like Washington, New Jersey, Arizona, that are currently in the process of enacting payment parity legislation for its citizens. We will continue to monitor the expansion of telehealth services in the state of Oregon, and other states across the nation in accordance with our “State” of Telehealth series.


[1] Identified as House Bill 2508 (HB2508) upon introduction in in the House of Representatives by Rep. Prusak on January 11, 2021.

[2] “Oregon telehealth bill has a legion of provider fans, but insurers raise cost concerns,” by Elizabeth Hayes, Portland Business Journal (February 10, 2021).

[3] Id.


Copyright © 2023, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.National Law Review, Volume XI, Number 63

About this Author

Matthew Shatzkes Attorney New York Sheppard Mullin

Matthew Shatzkes is a partner in the Corporate Practice Group in the New York office of Sheppard Mullin and is a member of the firm’s healthcare practice team.

Areas of Practice

Matthew provides strategic, regulatory, compliance, and transactional advice to all manner of health care clients, including health systems, hospitals, academic medical centers, long-term care providers, ambulatory surgery centers, diagnostic and treatment centers, physician practices, digital health companies and investors....

Ehiguina L. Borha Corporate Attorney Sheppard Mullin New York, NY

Ehi Borha is an associate in the Corporate Practice Group in the firm's New York office. 

Areas of Practice

Ehi's practice focuses on healthcare M&A and regulatory matters. He is a former member of the New York Due Diligence Group where he worked on the diligence aspect of a number of M&A transactions. Ehi is a 2019 graduate of New York Law School, where he served as a member of the mediation and negotiation clinic and completed a concentration in business and corporate law. He received his Bachelor of Arts in English Literature & Sociology from...