HB 3227
Voids noncompetition agreements, nondisclosure agreements nondisparagement agreements and nonsolicitation agreements between certain business entities and medical professionals, with specified exceptions, and prohibits the business entities from retaliating against the medical professional for violating the void agreements.
Jurisdiction
Oregon
Session
2025 Regular Session
Committee
Behavioral Health and Health Care
Take action
Record your position on this measure.
Sign in to record your position, submit testimony, or contact your legislator.
Sign in to take actionPublic sentiment
Support
92%
Oppose
8%
- Introduced
- Passed House
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Bill overview
This bill restricts the use of certain employment contracts by medical professionals in Oregon. It voids noncompetition agreements, nondisclosure agreements, nondisparagement agreements, and nonsolicitation agreements between medical professionals and businesses, with some exceptions. Furthermore, it prohibits businesses from retaliating against medical professionals for violating these agreements. The bill takes effect 91 days after the legislative session concludes.
Key provisions
- Voids noncompetition agreements between medical professionals and businesses.
- Voids nondisclosure agreements between medical professionals and businesses.
- Voids nondisparagement agreements between medical professionals and businesses.
- Voids nonsolicitation agreements between medical professionals and businesses.
- Prohibits businesses from retaliating against medical professionals for violating voided agreements.
- Defines key terms such as ‘disciplinary action,’ ‘management services organization,’ and ‘noncompetition agreement.’
- Specifies circumstances under which noncompetition agreements may be enforceable (sale of a professional medical entity).
- Establishes an effective date for the bill and its various sections.
Who is affected
- Medical professionals (physicians, nurse practitioners, etc.)
- Businesses that employ medical professionals
- Management services organizations
- Healthcare entities
- Patients
Sponsors
Official sponsors from legislative records.
Primary sponsors
Cosponsors
Arguments in favor
Reasons to support this legislation.
The testimony supports legislation to prohibit non-compete agreements for physicians, citing concerns about the impact on primary care availability, patient access to necessary services, and the ability of healthcare professionals to practice and advocate for themselves. Many testifiers share personal experiences with restrictive clauses that limit their ability to provide quality care, particularly in underserved communities such as Eugene, Oregon. They emphasize the importance of preserving and strengthening Oregon's healthcare workforce by protecting medical professionals from corporate control, which can lead to inadequate patient care, referral issues, and emotional and psychological toll on healthcare providers. The for a level playing field, applying the issue to Oregon's existing employment noncompete law, and argue that reducing or eliminating non-compete clauses would improve healthcare services and strengthen Oregon's corporate practice of medicine doctrine.
Source: Testimony Summaries
Arguments opposed
Reasons to oppose this legislation.
Opponents of the bill express concerns that it will have a restrictive impact on investments in Ambulatory Surgery Centers (ASCs), potentially limiting access to care for patients and hindering new facility developments. They argue that the current regulatory framework allows for flexibility and adaptability, which this bill may inadvertently restrict. Critics also point out that increased consolidation in the healthcare industry could lead to reduced competition and higher costs for patients, ultimately undermining the goal of increasing access to affordable healthcare services. Furthermore, opponents suggest that the bill's provisions may disproportionately affect rural or underserved areas where ASCs are often the primary source of healthcare services.