By ANTHONY MACUK

SALEM, Ore. – A bill to mandate equal pay for nurse practitioners suffered a major setback on Thursday when the House referred it to the Rules Committee.

The bill was ostensibly sent back due to problems with its language, but several Democrats expressed the belief that the return was a stall effort intended to kill the bill.

House Bill 4010 would mandate that nurse practitioners and doctors receive equal pay for the same services. According to its main carrier, Representative Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, it was drafted to address inequalities in the current system of reimbursement in Oregon.

Currently, the system assigns a numerical value to services performed by physicians and nurse practitioners. Insurance companies then provide reimbursement based on the numerical value. However, in recent years insurance companies have begun giving smaller reimbursements to nurse practitioners for the same services. The result has left many nurse practitioners struggling to make ends meet.

When the bill was presented to the House for discussion, Rep. Jason Conger, R-Bend, moved that the bill be returned to the House Rules Committee to further assess potential unintended consequences, claiming that the bill was too vague to be correctly implemented.

Though his speaking time was limited on the floor, Conger later clarified his position to Oregon Capitol News. The bill mandates that nurse practitioners receive the same pay as doctors “in their area.” Conger claimed that without more specific instructions, insurance companies will not know what defines an area, and therefore won’t know which physicians to use to determine the appropriate rate. Additionally, the fact that doctors with different specializations also currently receive different reimbursement rates only adds to the ambiguity.

Several representatives, including Greenlick, reacted negatively to Conger’s suggestion. Greenlick argued that the bill had already come through committee in a bipartisan process and should be amended in the Senate if necessary rather than referred. Co-speaker Peter Buckley, D-Ashland, took a similar view and said referring the bill would doom the effort.

“What I think would happen with this motion is to kill the bill,” said Buckley.

In spite of Greenlick’s efforts, the referral motion ultimately passed with a vote of 33-26. Greenlick expressed frustration with the outcome and told Oregon Capitol News that he believes the bill was referred in an attempt to kill it rather than to revise it.

“Given the short amount of time left in the session, I am certain the bill was referred to kill it,” Greenlick said in an email. “And it is very unlikely it will come out of that committee.”

When asked about Conger’s concerns, Greenlick remained highly skeptical.

“I do not believe those were the reasons the bill was referred to the rules committee,” said Greenlick. “There is a difference between reasons and excuses.”

Conger later acknowledged that referral ran the risk of killing the bill but said he still hoped it could be successfully retooled.

“It made it out [of the committee] the first time after a very short period of time,” said Conger. “I can’t speculate to know what will happen, but I have faith in my fellow legislators to do their best to find a solution.”

The Bend representative expressed sympathy for the situation currently faced by nurse practitioners, but he insisted that the bill needed to be reworked before being passed.

“I think there’s a real problem. I’ve heard from nurse practitioners who are struggling, and they’re important,” said Conger. “But the bill doesn’t address the problem in a way that will accomplish our goals.”