Chair Carrie Bowman opened a public hearing April 28 on House Bill 3838, a proposal to establish a Home and Community Services Workforce Standards Board to set minimum wages, benefits and training standards for a wide range of home- and community-based caregivers. Supporters said the board would give workers and employers a permanent forum to address chronic staffing shortages and turnover; opponents said the panel would improperly delegate lawmaking authority, impose unfunded mandates and risk costly litigation and privacy harms.

The bill as amended (dash 3) would create an 11-member board appointed by the governor, including three worker representatives, three employer representatives, two people who represent service recipients, one Bureau of Labor and Industries representative, one Department of Human Services representative and one executive-branch appointee. The governor would be required to appoint co-chairs — one representing workers and one representing employers. The dash 3 amendment requires the board to conduct a comprehensive market study and public hearings before adopting standards; it directs the board to consult with the director of Medicaid services and makes adoption of any standard with fiscal impact contingent on legislative appropriation and, where required, federal approval (for example, CMS). The amendment also assigns investigatory and enforcement authority to the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) rather than giving the board independent enforcement power.

Supporters emphasized workforce and quality-of-care goals. Melissa Unger, executive director of SEIU Local 503, said the workforce faces “poverty wages, burnout, and extreme turnover,” and that standards are needed to avoid preventable harm and ensure consistent care. David Madland, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, cited other jurisdictions’ experience, saying workforce standards boards in several places have “successfully raised wages and improved access to overtime, paid time off, and training” and described Nevada’s board as improving retention after wage increases.

Proponents and bill sponsors described several substantive elements in the dash 3 amendment: the board must establish minimum compensation at or above applicable minimum wage, set working-condition rules (schedules and staffing), provide for health and paid benefits including sick leave and paid family leave, require a market study (due by Sept. 30, 2027), and delay final adoption and enforcement of any standards until necessary fiscal approvals and a 90-day implementation window. The amendment also requires a biennial review of standards and directs BOLI to use its existing investigatory authorities, including subpoenas and taking testimony.

Opponents from provider associations and some providers said the bill raises constitutional, fiscal and practical concerns. Phil Bentley of the Oregon Healthcare Association argued the proposal “outsources lawmaking authority to a special interest controlled, unelected board” and called the fiscal-safety mechanisms inadequate because the bill requires fiscal review only “upon request” rather than systematically. Amanda Dalton of the Oregon Resource Association warned the dash 3’s board makeup and procedures could allow rulemaking that providers could not afford to implement and said the bill includes a requirement that employers provide worker pay stubs and other payroll information that could disclose home addresses and other private data (transcript reference: dash 3, page 7, lines 28–29). Multiple providers testified that Medicaid reimbursement rates currently underpay the cost of care and that unfunded new mandates could force closures or reduced access for Medicaid beneficiaries.

Several providers and family advocates described care lapses they attribute to understaffing and training shortfalls and urged action on wages and staffing. Opponents and some legislators pressed proponents on the timeline for benefits reaching workers; proponents and some worker witnesses said the board is intended to create a durable, sector-wide mechanism and that legislative appropriations could — and in proponents’ view should — address near-term wage needs sooner than the board’s process alone.

Committee members asked detailed questions about separation of powers, agency roles, privacy protections, and enforcement. Representatives and witnesses debated whether the board should be advisory (as in Nevada and Colorado, where boards are limited in scope) or be empowered to adopt binding standards across many different care settings and payer systems. Phil Bentley and other opponents emphasized the breadth of authority the bill would grant compared with other states, and cautioned the proposed delegation could cause legal risk and unintended fiscal consequences. Proponents said the dash 3 amendment narrowed the board’s design compared with earlier drafts and added procedural safeguards, including statutory limits that tie implementation to legislative funding decisions.

The hearing produced no committee vote on House Bill 3838. Lawmakers and witnesses agreed on the need to strengthen the caregiving workforce, but the record shows substantial disagreement about whether this particular statutory structure is the right instrument and how to protect privacy, oversight and fiscal accountability.

Ending: The committee left the bill pending for further consideration; public testimony and written submissions will remain part of the record for future deliberations.