Oregon Measure 101, Healthcare Insurance Premiums Tax for Medicaid Referendum (January 2018)

Elections in Oregon, 2018

• General election: Nov. 6
• Voter registration deadline: Oct. 16
• Early voting: N/A
• Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6

• Online registration: Yes
• Same-day registration: N/A (all-mail elections)
• Voter ID: N/A
• Poll times: N/A

---

On the ballot: U.S. House • Governor • State executive offices • State Senate • State House • Supreme court • Appellate courts • Local judges • State ballot measures • Local ballot measures • Municipal • Recalls • Democratic primaries • Republican primaries

Oregon Measure 101 (January)
Election date January 23, 2018
Topic Taxes and Healthcare
Status a Approved
Type Referendum	Origin Citizens
List of Oregon measuresOregon Measure 102Oregon Measure 103Oregon Measure 104Oregon Measure 105Oregon Measure 106Oregon Measure 101 (January)Senden

Oregon Measure 101, the Healthcare Insurance Premiums Tax for Medicaid Referendum, was on the ballot in Oregon as a veto referendum on January 23, 2018. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported upholding certain assessments/taxes on healthcare insurance and the revenue of certain hospitals to provide funding for Medicaid expansion by approving five sections of House Bill 2391.

A "no" vote opposed certain assessments/taxes on healthcare insurance and the revenue of certain hospitals to provide funding for Medicaid expansion by rejecting five sections of House Bill 2391.

Election results

Oregon Measure 101
Result		Votes	Prozentualer Anteil
a Yes		657,117	61.68%
No		408,387	38.32%

Results from Oregon Secretary of State

Turnout

The turnout for this election was 40.5 percent.

Vote in Pivot Counties

See also: Pivot Counties: The counties that voted Obama-Obama-Trump from 2008-2016 and Pivot Counties in Oregon

A majority of voters in Oregon’s two Pivot Counties voted “Yes” on the veto referendum. Pivot Counties are counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Oregon has two Pivot Counties—Columbia and Tillamook counties. The total combined “yes” vote of electors in Oregon’s two Pivot Counties on Measure 101 was 55.63 percent, 7.50 percentage points more than in Oregon’s 23 Republican counties and 13.80 percentage points less than in Oregon’s Democratic eight counties.

Übersicht

Measure 101 and Obamacare

Measure 101 addressed taxes with revenue set to fund Medicaid expansion. The state government of Oregon expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act—also known as Obamacare—in 2014. The expansion was fully funded by the federal government from 2014 through 2016. In 2017, the federal government provided 95 percent of funding for Medicaid expansion, and the remainder was the responsibility of the state government. Federal funding for Medicaid expansion was scheduled to decrease to 94 percent in 2018, 93 percent in 2019, and 90 percent in 2020 and after. The Oregon State Legislature approved House Bill 2391 (HB 2391), and Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed it into law on July 3, 2017. HB 2391 was designed to use revenue from new assessments and taxes to cover the state's share of the costs of Medicaid expansion. State officials estimated that HB 2391 would generate $673 million in state revenue for the state's health system and that this spending would result in $1.9 billion from the federal government during the 2017-2019 fiscal year. According to the state legislature's 2017-2019 budget, federal funding for the state health system decreased by $532 million from the 2015-2017 budget primarily because of the decrease in funding for Medicaid expansion.

The state legislature passed HB 2391 largely along partisan lines, with all Democrats in both chambers approving it and 33 out of 39 Republicans voting against it. The veto referendum petition drive that resulted in Measure 101 being on the ballot was launched by three Republican state legislators, state Representatives Julie Parrish (R-37), Sal Esquivel (R-6), and Cedric Hayden (R-7).

What did Measure 101 do?

A "yes" vote on Measure 101 approved five sections of House Bill 2391 (HB 2391), and a "no" vote on Measure 101 would have repealed those five sections. Measure 101 was put on the ballot through a veto referendum petition designed to repeal the provisions of HB 2391 in question; this means that those responsible for collecting signatures and qualifying Measure 101 for the ballot advocated for a "no" vote. The provisions of HB 2391 that were up for a vote under Measure 101 placed a 1.5 percent assessment on premiums that healthcare insurers earned and premium equivalents that managed care organizations (MCOs) and the Public Employees’ Benefit Board received during a calendar quarter to provide funding for Medicaid. A "no" vote on Measure 101 was intended to also repeal a 0.7 percent tax on the net revenue of hospitals to provide funding for Medicaid; however, there was disagreement between the legislative counsel and petitioners over whether the referendum would have repealed this tax or delayed it. Moreover, the targeted sections of HB 2391 contained language permitting insurers to increase premiums on healthcare plans to cover the costs of the assessment; a "yes" vote approved this language, and a "no" vote would have repealed it. At the time the referendum was certified for the ballot, the targeted sections of HB 2391 were suspended from going into effect until the election on Measure 101. The other sections of HB 2391 became effective on January 1, 2018.

State of the ballot measure campaigns

The Stop Healthcare Taxes petition and measure committees were registered as campaign committees, advocating for a "no" vote on the veto referendum. The Stop Healthcare Taxes petition committee sponsored the referendum petition and collected signatures to get the measure on the ballot. A total of at least $38,326.29 was spent to collect the 58,789 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $0.65. The Stop Healthcare Taxes measure committee led the campaign for a "no" vote on Measure 101. These committees raised $404,271.99 and spent $405,103.97.

There were two measure committees registered as advocating for a "yes" vote on the veto referendum: the Yes for Healthcare committee and the Protect Our Healthcare committee. The two measure committees raised $3.8 million.

Medicaid expansion as a national issue

As of January 2018, 32 states and Washington, D.C., had approved Medicaid expansion, and 18 states had not.

On November 7, 2017, Maine voters approved an initiative designed to require Medicaid expansion; this was the first time Medicaid expansion was approved through a citizen initiative. As of January 2018, initiatives pertaining to Medicaid had been proposed in four other states. Groups in Idaho, Missouri, and Utah have proposed measures similar to the Maine initiative, requiring Medicaid expansion of some kind. An initiative designed to enact provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as state law, was proposed in Alaska.

The special election and ballot language

In July 2017, the state legislature approved a bill—Senate Bill 229 (SB 229)—calling for Measure 101 to be put before voters on January 23, 2018, instead of November 6, 2018. The bill also called for a legislative committee composed of three state representatives and three state senators to draft the referendum's ballot title and ballot summary—a task typically assigned to the attorney general. Four Democrats and two Republicans were appointed to draft the ballot language. SB 229 passed along partisan lines with all Republicans legislators opposing it and all but two of 50 Democratic legislators supporting it. The last time the state Legislature called a special election for veto referendums was in 2010. The last time a veto referendum was on the ballot was in 2014.

Referendum petitioners objected to the ballot language drafted by the legislative committee, and the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the initial language needed to be changed.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

"

Approves temporary assessments to fund health care for low-income individuals and families, and to stabilize health insurance premiums. Temporary assessments on insurance companies, some hospitals, and other providers of insurance or health care coverage. Insurers may not increase rates on health insurance premiums by more than 1.5 percent as a result of these assessments Result of “Yes” Vote: “Yes” vote approves temporary assessments on insurance companies, some hospitals, the Public Employees’ Benefit Board, and managed care organizations. Assessments provide funding for health care for low-income individuals and families, and individuals with disabilities; also stabilize premiums charged by insurance companies for health insurance purchased by individuals and families. Insurance companies may not increase rates on health insurance premiums by more than 1.5 percent as a result of the assessments. Hospital assessments may not begin without approval by a federal agency. Result of “No” Vote: “No” vote rejects temporary assessments on insurance companies, the Public Employees’ Benefit Board, and managed care organizations; and either rejects or delays temporary assessments on some hospitals. Assessments rejected (or delayed) by a “no” vote are currently budgeted to fund health care for low-income individuals and families and individuals with disabilities and for stabilizing the costs of insurance premiums. As a result, a “no” vote would underfund these budgeted costs.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

"

Summary: This measure asks voters to approve or reject temporary assessments created as part of House Bill 2391, enacted by the 2017 Oregon Legislature to address certain health care funding issues. The House Bill provided funding to pay costs for providing health care to low-income adults, children, families, and individuals with disabilities, and to stabilize premiums charged by insurance companies for health insurance purchased by individuals and families. The House Bill provided the funding through 1.5 percent assessments on premiums and premium equivalents (defined in the House Bill) of health insurance companies, the Public Employees’ Benefit Board, and managed care organizations for a two-year period, and additional 0.7 percent assessments on the net revenue of some hospitals that begins on October 6, 2017, and ends on July 1, 2019. This measure asks voters to approve or reject the assessments on insurance companies, the Public Employees’ Benefit Board, and managed care organizations, and specifies that insurance companies may not increase rates on health insurance premiums by more than 1.5 percent as a result of these assessments. If this measure passes, the assessments on some hospitals will be approved, subject to approval by a federal agency. If the measure does not pass, the assessments on some hospitals will either be rejected, or delayed until approved by a federal agency.

”

Full text

The sections of House Bill 2391 enacted by approval of Measure 101—Sections 3, 5, 8, 9, and 27—are as follows:

Enrolled House Bill 2391 Section 3. (2) No later than 45 days following the end of a calendar quarter, the Public Employees’ Benefit Board shall pay an assessment at the rate of 1.5 percent on the gross amount of premium equivalents received during the calendar quarter. (4) The assessment imposed under this section is in addition to and not in lieu of any tax, surcharge or other assessment imposed on the board. Section 5 (2) No later than 45 days following the end of a calendar quarter, an insurer shall pay an assessment at the rate of 1.5 percent of the gross amount of premiums earned by the insurer during that calendar quarter that were derived from health benefit plans delivered or issued for delivery in Oregon. (4) The assessment imposed under this section is in addition to and not in lieu of any tax, surcharge or other assessment imposed on an insurer. Section 8 (2) Notwithstanding any provision of contract or statute, including ORS 743B.013 and 743.022, insurers may increase their premium rate on policies or certificates that are subject to the assessment under section 5 of this 2017 Act by 1.5 percent. If an insurer increases its rates under this subsection, the insurer may include in its billings for health benefit plans a notice, as prescribed by the Department of Consumer and Business Services, explaining that the increase is due to the assessment under section 5 of this 2017 Act. Section 9 (2) No later than 45 days following the end of a calendar quarter, a managed care organization shall pay an assessment at a rate of 1.5 percent of the gross amount of premium equivalents received during that calendar quarter. (5) The assessment imposed under this section is in addition to and not in lieu of any tax, surcharge or other assessment imposed on a managed care organization. Section 27 (2) In addition to the assessment imposed by subsection (1) of this section, an assessment of 0.7 percent is imposed on the net revenue of each hospital in this state that is not a waivered hospital.

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

"

Revenue from this measure is included in the 2017-19 state budget to pay for health care for low-income adults, children and families and individuals with disabilities and to stabilize health insurance premiums paid by individuals and families. Revenue will come from a 0.7% assessment on certain hospitals, as well as a 1.5% assessment on the Public Employees Benefit Board, managed care organizations, and insurers. Insurers may not increase rates for consumers by more than 1.5% to recover this assessment. If the measure passes, the health care program and health insurance premiums stabilization program are funded as adopted by the 2017 Legislative Assembly. If the measure is defeated there will be a reduction of $210-$320 million in state revenue, resulting in a possible reduction of $630-$960 million, or more in federal Medicaid matching funds. The total revenue reduction to the 2017-19 state budget may be $840 million-$1.3 billion or more. Although there is no direct financial effect on local government revenues, there may be an indeterminate effect on local government expenditures related to increases in associated insurance assessments. There is likely to be an indirect and indeterminate effect on the state economy and local government revenues and expenditures.

”

Explanatory statement

The explanatory statement was as follows:

Measure 101 Explanatory Statement The 2017 Legislative Assembly enacted House Bill 2391 to address certain health care funding issues. Petitioners have referred five parts of House Bill 2391 to voters for their approval or rejection. House Bill 2391 provided additional funds to pay some of the state's costs to provide health care to low-income adults, children and families and individuals with disabilities and provided funds to pay the state's costs to stabilize health insurance premiums paid by individuals and families. Some of the additional funds came from temporary assessments on insurance companies, the Public Employees' Benefit Board and managed care organizations, including a 1.5 percent assessment on the gross amount of health insurance premiums collected by insurance companies, a 1.5 percent assessment on payments to managed care organizations and a 1.5 percent assessment on the health care costs and associated administrative expenses paid by the Public Employees' Benefit Board. The remainder of the additional funds came by amending an existing assessment on the net revenue of some hospitals in this state to include an additional 0.7 percent assessment. The additional 0.7 percent assessment went into effect on October 6, 2017. House Bill 2391 made further amendments to the hospital assessment that go into effect on the later of January 1, 2018, or the date that a federal agency approves the additional changes. Ballot Measure 101 asks voters to approve or reject the parts of House Bill 2391 that create the temporary 1.5 percent assessment on insurance companies, the Public Employees' Benefit Board and managed care organizations. It also asks the voters to approve or reject the House Bill 2391 amendment to the hospital assessment that goes into effect October 6, 2017. Ballot Measure 101 does not ask the voters to approve or reject the House Bill 2391 amendments to the hospital assessment that go into effect on the later of January 1, 2018, or the date a federal agency approves changes required by the amendments. If the voters reject Ballot Measure 101, it would eliminate the temporary assessment on insurance companies, the Public Employees' Benefit Board and managed care organizations and delay the collection of the additional 0.7 percent hospital assessment until the later of January 1, 2018, or the date that a federal agency approves the changes required by the amendment. The effect would be to underfund the budgeted costs for providing health care to low-income children, adults and families and individuals with disabilities and to eliminate the funds budgeted to stabilize health insurance premiums paid by individuals and families.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The Legislative Drafting Committee wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 16, and the FRE is 22. The word count for the ballot title is 216, and the estimated reading time is 47 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 19, and the FRE is 20. The word count for the ballot summary is 214, and the estimated reading time is 57 seconds. In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here. Based on political scientists Reilly and Richey's (2011) research, the mean FKGL for a statewide measure on the ballot in Oregon between 1997 and 2007 was 14.

Support for "Yes" vote

Note: For Measure 101, individuals and entities who supported a "yes" vote were those who wanted to uphold HB 2391.

Yes for Healthcare led the campaign for a "yes" vote on Measure 101.

Supporters

Officials

• Gov. Kate Brown (D)
• Former Gov. John Kitzhaber (D)

Organizations

The following organizations were listed as supporters on the Yes for Healthcare campaign website:

AARP Oregon AAUP Oregon Addictions Recovery Center Adelante Mujeres Advantage Dental AFT-Oregon AllCare Health Alliance4Kids Alzheimer’s Association of Oregon American Association of University Women American College of Nurse Midwives – Oregon American College of Physicians Oregon Chapter Asante Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon Basic Rights Oregon Beyond Toxics Bridges to Change CareOregon Cascade Health Alliance Catholic Charities of Oregon Causa CCO Oregon Central City Concern Children First for Oregon The Children’s Clinic (offices in Portland, Tualatin and Newberg) Children’s Institute Church Women of United Lane County Climate Solutions Coalition for a Healthy Oregon (COHO) Coalition of Communities of Color Coalition of Community Health Clinics Coaltion of Oregon Professional Association for Counseling and Therapy (COPACT) Coastal Family Health Center Columbia Pacific CCO Community Health Center of Clatskanie Community Partners for Affordable Housing Confederation of Oregon School Administrators De Paul Treatment Centers Disability Rights Oregon Douglas County Independent Physician Association Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon Euvalcree Fair Shot for All Oregon Familias En Accion Family Forward Oregon Family Nurturing Center Forward Together Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation Health Care for All Oregon Health Share of Oregon HIV Alliance Housing Alliance Human Services Coalition of Oregon IATSE Local 488 Studio Mechanics of the Pacific Northwest IBEW Local 48 Independent Living Resources Interfaith Movement for Immigrant Justice Jackson Care Connect CCO Jefferson Regional Health Alliance Jewish Federation of Greater Portland Jobs with Justice Kaiser Permanente Klamath County Medical Society La Clinica Lancaster Family Health Center Lane County Medical Society Latino Network League of Women Voters – Oregon Legacy Health LifeWorks NW Main Street Alliance of Oregon Mid-Valley Health Care Advocates Mirasol Family Health Center NAACP Portland Branch NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) National Association of Hispanic Nurses Oregon Chapter National Association of Letter Carriers, Branch 82 National Association of Social Workers – Oregon National Organization for Women – Oregon Chapter Native American Youth and Family Center (NAYA) Neighborhood Partnerships North by Northeast Community Health Center Northwest Housing Alternatives Nurses for Single Payer NW Oregon Labor Council Office of The Rev. Dr. Chuck Currie One Community Health Options Counseling and Family Services Oregon Academy of Family Physicians Oregon Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Oregon AFL-CIO Oregon AFSCME Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems Oregon Center for Christian Voices Oregon Center for Public Policy OCHIN Oregon Community Health Workers Association (ORCHWA) Oregon Consumer League Oregon Dental Association Oregon Developmental Disabilities Coalition Oregon Education Association Oregon Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals Oregon Head Start Association Oregon Health Care Association Oregon Health Equity Alliance Oregon Latino Agenda for Action (OLAA) Oregon Latino Health Coalition Oregon League of Conservation Voters Oregon Medical Association Oregon Nurses Association Oregon Optometric Physicians Association Oregon Patients Rights Association Oregon Pediatric Society Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility Oregon Primary Care Association Oregon Public Health Association Oregon Public Health Institute (OPHI) Oregon Recovers Oregon School-Based Health Alliance Oregon School Boards Association Oregon School Employees Association Oregon Society of Anesthesiologists Oregon State Council of Retired Citizens Oregon State Firefighters Council Oregon Thoracic Society OSPIRG Oregon-PTA Oregon Working Families Party Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons of Oregon (OPSO) Our Health Oregon Outside In Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters Pacific Pediatrics Partners for a Hunger-Free Oregon Partnership for Safety and Justice PCUN – Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste PeaceHealth Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon Portland Teachers Portland Therapy Center PrimaryHealth of Josephine County Professional and Technical Employees Local 17 Project Access NOW Providence Health & Services Renew Oregon Rogue Community Health Rosewood Family Health Center Rural Health Association Rural Oregon Progressives Rural Organizing Project Salud Medical Center Samaritan Health Services SEIU Local 49 SEIU Local 503 ShelterCare St. Charles Health System Stand for Children Street Roots Susan G. Komen Oregon & SW Washington Trillium Community Health Plan Tuality Health UFCW Local 555 Umpqua Health Alliance Unidos Bridging Community Unite Oregon United Academics United Seniors of Oregon Upstream Public Health Urban League of Portland Virginia Garcia Memorial Health Center The Vocal Seniority We Can Do Better Western Oregon Advanced Health Willamette Dental Willamette Valley Community Health Willamette Valley Physicians Yakima Valley Farm Workers Clinic Yamhill Community Care Organization ZOOM+pediatrics

Arguments

Yes for Healthcare argued that voting "yes" on Measure 101 "guarantees healthcare for Oregon’s most vulnerable – children, seniors and people with disabilities – who otherwise wouldn’t be able to see a nurse or doctor when they get sick." The group also stated that 95 percent of Oregonians and all children would have access to healthcare with the approval of Measure 101.

Oregon AFSCME argued:

"

Hard-working Oregonians across the state need accessible, affordable healthcare. Measure 101 guarantees that coverage, protecting health insurance for the 1 million Oregonians who rely on the Oregon Health Plan. That’s why Measure 101 is vital to keeping Oregon families healthy. Voters have the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to a healthy state by supporting Measure 101. This measure ensures that: every child in Oregon has healthcare coverage hard-working Oregonians can go to a doctor or a nurse when they are sick communities throughout the state keep good-paying healthcare jobs, strengthening the local economy working families will be able to afford their premiums thanks to a stabilized insurance marketplace the funds go directly to the Health Services Fund and cannot be spent on anything other than healthcare If Measure 101 fails, vulnerable Oregonians and families across the state face an uncertain future. Without the ability to see a doctor for preventive care, families will be forced to resort to costly Emergency Room visits that they simply cannot afford. Oregon families deserve better.

”

Former Governor John Kitzhaber (D) said:

"

I agree that funding for the Oregon Health Plan is a shared social responsibility, but jeopardizing health insurance coverage for 350,000 Oregonians to make that point is equally unfair and unnecessary. Let's put this into perspective. We need a stable, long-term -- and equitable -- funding strategy for the health plan, which contributes to the state's chronic structural budget deficit. As The Oregonian correctly pointed out, the governor and legislative leadership failed to address either issue. But defeating the ballot measure will only make it that much more difficult to do so in the future.

”

Nichole June Maher with the Northwest Health Foundation, argued:

"

Everyone deserves the chance to lead a healthy life. That includes affordable healthcare. We know that: Mothers with access to affordable healthcare have healthier babies. Students with health insurance miss fewer days of school. Employees with access to affordable healthcare for themselves and their families are more productive and happier. All Oregonians benefit when families can see a doctor or nurse, and don’t have to visit the ER for routine care. Voting yes on Measure 101 means that, for the first time, every child in Oregon will have access to healthcare. When our friends, family, coworkers and neighbors can afford healthcare, we all benefit. By voting yes on Measure 101, you protect basic healthcare for Oregonians, including children, hardworking families, seniors and people with disabilities. Let's make sure all Oregonians continue to receive the healthcare they deserve.

”

Trevor R Beltz with the Oregon Medical Association, argued:

"

The Oregon Medical Association is an organization of over 8,000 physicians, physician assistants, and medical and physician assistant students. Our mission is to serve and support physicians in their efforts to improve the health of Oregonians. Part of our duty is to inform Oregonians on issues that are critical to their health and healthcare. That is why we write to urge a YES vote on Measure 101. As medical professionals, we see every day the difference that access to affordable health coverage makes on people and the state as a whole: It saves lives. Preventive care, early detection, and treatment are only possible if people have access to see a doctor. It increases security. Lack of health care coverage causes incredible stress, and the cost of uncovered care can bankrupt families and small businesses. It saves money. If people wait until they are seriously ill before seeking treatment, usually through an Emergency Room, their medical care becomes far more expensive. That is a cost that all consumers end up paying. Measure 101 preserves health care coverage for the 1 in 4 Oregonians – especially kids, seniors, and people with disabilities – who otherwise couldn't afford a doctor's visit. Measure 101 reduces premiums for an additional 210,000 Oregonians, taking their health care from unaffordable to affordable. The money from Measure 101 also unlocks federal matching dollars, up to $16 for every $1 generated in Oregon. If Measure 101 does not pass, we could lose up to $3 to $5 billion in federal health care funding. For all these reasons, every Oregonian has a stake in Measure 101. Please join the medical professionals of the Oregon Medical Association by voting YES on 101.

”

Voter pamphlet arguments

A total of 54 arguments in favor (for a "yes" vote) were submitted and included in the state voter pamphlet on Measure 101. Two of the arguments in the support section, however, were submitted by advocates of a "no" vote for inclusion in the Arguments in Favor section instead of the Arguments in Opposition section. Those two arguments are on page 29 and page 31, respectively, of the online voter pamphlet. This was possible because state elections officials are required to place submitted arguments in the section identified by the author rather than separating them based on content.

The complete list of arguments from the Oregon voter pamphlet can be viewed here, with arguments in favor beginning on page 17.

Campaign advertisements

See also: Oregon Measure 101 (January 2018) campaign advertisements

The following videos were the three campaign advertisements from the Vote Yes on Measure 101 campaign with the most views on Youtube, as of January 16, 2018. The full list of campaign advertisements is available on the following page: Oregon Measure 101 (January 2018) campaign advertisements.

Title: 160+ Trusted Organizations ...

Title: Doctors Statewide: Vote YES on 101

Title: Ballots due Tuesday

Support for "No" vote

Note: For Measure 101, individuals and entities that supported a "no" vote were those who wanted to repeal HB 2391.

Stop Healthcare Taxes led the campaign for a "no" vote. The PAC Oregonians Against More Healthcare Taxes sponsored the signature drive for referendum.

State Representatives Julie Parrish (R-37), Sal Esquivel (R-6), and Cedric Hayden (R-7) filed the veto referendum. Sponsors described HB 2391 as "a sales tax on healthcare."

Opponents

Officials

• Rep. Julie Parrish (R-37)
• Rep. Sal Esquivel (R-6)
• Rep. Cedric Hayden (R-7)
• E. Werner Reschke (R-56)
• Rep. Knute Buehler (R-54)

Organizations

• Taxpayer Association of Oregon
• Cascade Policy Institute

Arguments

Stop Healthcare Taxes argued that individual Oregon citizens, small businesses, college students, healthcare providers and hospitals, would pay the tax under HB 2391, while large corporations, unions, and insurance companies themselves would not pay the tax. Specifically, Stop Healthcare Taxes stated, "In fact, one section of the bill expressly allows insurance companies to pass the new taxes directly to you, the purchaser. It’s a Sales Tax on healthcare, and we think voters deserve the right to vote."

Rep. Cedric Hayden (R-7), one of the legislators who filed the referendum, stated:

"

The inclusion of a tax on insurance premiums will result in higher health care costs for small businesses, college students and everyone in between. It’s disappointing that bipartisan alternatives were not given the consideration they deserved by the majority party.

”

Rep. Sal Esquivel (R-6) voted to pass HB 2391 in the Oregon House of Representatives. Rep. Esquivel said he joined the referendum campaign because he believed that other bills would allow the state to use the Medicaid funding to provide healthcare to immigrant children residing in the state without legal permission and to fund abortions. He stated the following about his position:

"

I supported HB 2391 because I think those who qualify under the federal law should have a way to see the doctor. It was a hard vote, but it needed to be done. What's ensued since is a major overreach by the House Democrats to drive new costs and expand programs when we can't fully fund programs for our veterans and citizens. That's not how those tax increases were presented to me.

”

E. Werner Reschke (R-56) said:

"

Your No vote will not take away health care coverage from anyone, but it will force the legislature to do its job of properly, and fairly, budgeting for Medicaid — something it failed to do in 2017. Vote No and tell Oregon’s legislature to put you the people first before special interests.

”

Jason Williams with the Taxpayer Association of Oregon, argued:

"

When Oregon voters overwhelmingly rejected Measure 97 last year, the Legislature didn’t listen to you! Instead, politicians passed BILLIONS of DOLLARS in new taxes and fees. Governor Kate Brown and the Legislature passed $5.3 BILLION dollars in transportation taxes. These new taxes included: A "privilege" tax on new car purchases! A 10-cent per gallon gas tax increase - the nation's 5th highest gas tax! A new statewide payroll tax which forces Oregonians living in areas with no bus service to fund light-rail in the Metro-area! Vehicle registration and title fee increases that rank Oregon 15th highest in the nation! They even taxed your bicycles! If that wasn't bad enough, the Legislature passed $330 MILLION in new healthcare sales taxes. A yes vote on Measure 101 will impose a 1.5% tax on all health insurance plans purchased either in the individual, small or large group insurance markets, including plans on Healthcare.gov. Politicians even allowed insurance companies to collect the taxes by increasing your premiums! A “yes” also imposes a tax on many of our local hospitals; they will be forced to pass the tax increases onto you! These new healthcare taxes will harm Oregonians who are paying full price to provide coverage for themselves, their families or their employees. Thankfully, we have the power to stop it! This session, when politicians wanted to steal your "kicker" tax refund, we successfully worked to stop them. Now you can expect to see an average refund of $227 when you file your 2017 tax return. And with a NO vote on this measure, you can protect yourself from harmful new taxes on healthcare. Send a strong message to Salem: TAXING HEALTHCARE DOES NOT MAKE IT MORE AFFORDABLE!!! Please VOTE NO on Measure 101.

”

Steve Buckstein with the Cascade Policy Institute, argued:

"

Oregon state government has a long history of mismanaging “other people’s health care dollars,” including: Wasting $300 million federal tax dollars building a website, Cover Oregon, that wasn’t able to sign up a single person for health insurance. Paying $280 million a year for nearly 55,000 Medicaid recipients recently found to no longer qualify or who failed to respond to an eligibility check. Overpaying health care organizations $74 million over three years to provide expanded Medicaid coverage to some Oregonians. The state initially only asked for $10 million of those overpayments back, and under political pressure eventually asked for the rest. As one Oregon economist notes about the taxes in Measure 101: “The law explicitly allows the new taxes on health insurance providers to be passed on to consumers. With these new taxes, that Silver ACA plan will cost about $625 more in 2019 than in 2018. It's not just 40-year-olds who will get hit with the insurance tax. Nearly 12,000 college students…will pay the tax. Small group employers…will pay the new tax. “Taxes on hospitals will raise the costs of care across the board….The cost of these taxes also will be passed on in the form of higher deductibles and premiums. Even if you don't go to the hospital, you will be paying the hospital tax through higher insurance prices.” The cost of health care is already too expensive for many Oregonians. Don’t let the state add even more taxes onto services that are expensive enough already, especially when it has such a poor track record spending the health care tax money it already gets from us. Say No to these new health care sales taxes. Vote No on Measure 101.

”

Voter pamphlet arguments

A total of 29 arguments in opposition (for a "no" vote) were submitted and included in the state voter pamphlet on Measure 101. Two of the arguments in the support section, however, were submitted by advocates of a "no" vote for inclusion in the Arguments in Favor section instead of the Arguments in Opposition section. Those two arguments are on page 29 and page 31, respectively, of the online voter pamphlet. One of these arguments was submitted by Lindsay Berschauer, Director of Oregonians Against More Healthcare Taxes PAC, and the other was submitted by Rep. Julie Parrish (R), one of the chief petitioners behind the referendum petition and a leader of the campaign for a "no" vote. This was possible because state elections officials are required to place submitted arguments in the section identified by the author rather than separating them based on content.

The complete list of arguments from the Oregon voter pamphlet can be viewed here, with arguments in opposition beginning on page 36.

Campaign advertisements

See also: Oregon Measure 101 (January 2018) campaign advertisements

The following videos are three campaign advertisements from the Vote "No" on Measure 101 campaign. The full list of campaign advertisements is available on the following page: Oregon Measure 101 (January 2018) campaign advertisements.

Title: Stop House Bill 2391 - or Let Oregonians Vote

Campaign finance

Total campaign contributions:
Support for "yes"	$3,825,025.25
Support for "no"	$404,271.99

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Oregon ballot measures

There were two committees that registered to advocate for a "no" vote on the veto referendum: the Stop Healthcare Taxes petition committee and the Stop Healthcare Taxes measure committee. There were also two measure committees that advocated for a "yes" vote on the veto referendum: the Yes for Healthcare committee and the Protect Our Healthcare committee.

The two committees that advocated for a "yes" vote raised a combined total of $3.8 million and spent $3.8 million, including cash contributions and expenditures and in-kind services. The top contributor to the campaign that advocated for a "yes" vote was the Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, which donated $912,246.81.

The Stop Healthcare Taxes petition committee sponsored the referendum petition and collected signatures to get the measure on the ballot. The Stop Healthcare Taxes measure committee, which was managed by Rep. Julie Parrish, advocated for a "no" vote on Measure 101. The committees raised a combined total of $404,271.99 and spent $405,103.97, including both cash and in-kind services in both amounts. The top contributor to the "no" campaign was the All 36 PAC, which contributed $112,368.81. The All 36 PAC was controlled by Rep. Cedric Hayden (R-7).

Support for "Yes" vote

Below are the contributions and expenditures for the committees registered to support a "yes" vote on Measure 101:

Committees in support of the Healthcare Insurance Premiums Tax for Medicaid Referendum Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Yes for Healthcare $3,106,101.00 $670,744.17 $3,098,576.70 Protect Our Healthcare $27,180.00 $21,000.08 $26,190.00 Total $3,133,281.00 $691,744.25 $3,124,138.11

Totals in support Total raised: $3,825,025.25 Total spent: $3,816,785.95

Donors

The following were the top five donors who contributed to the committees that advocated for a "yes" vote:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems	$800,000.00	$112,246.81	$912,246.81
SEIU Local 503 OPEU	$200,000.00	$363,123.12	$563,123.12
Providence Health & Services	$175,000.00	$7,796.33	$182,796.33
AllCare Management Services, LLC	$125,000.00	$0.00	$125,000.00
American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and AFT OR Candidate PAC (113)	$145,000.00	$0.00	$145,000.00

Support for "No" vote

Below are the contributions and expenditures for the committees registered to support a "no" vote on Measure 101:

Committees in opposition to Oregon Measure 101 Opposing committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Stop Healthcare Taxes (Petition) $61,639.90 $200,409.97 $62,471.88 Stop Healthcare Taxes (Measure) $84,601.59 $57,620.53 $84,601.59 Total $146,241.49 $258,030.50 $147,073.47

Totals in opposition Total raised: $404,271.99 Total spent: $405,103.97

Donors

The following were the top five donors who contributed to the committees advocating for a "no" vote:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
All 36 PAC	$33,500.00	$78,868.81	$112,368.81
Taxpayer Association of Oregon	$7,500.00	$53,600.00	$61,100.00
Brian Maguire, II	$30,000	$0.00	$30,000
Hayden for Oregon (16541)	$0.00	$27,490.90	$18,577.77
PIP Communication, LLC	$0.00	$19,000.00	$19,000.00

Methodology

Methodology specific to Measure 101:

There were multiple types of committees, including measure and petition committees, miscellaneous political action committees, and candidate committees that registered as supporting a "yes" or "no" vote on Measure 101. Ballotpedia only lists measure and petition committees here, because their sole purpose was to advocate for a certain outcome on Measure 101. We do not include the other types of registered committees because it is not possible to tell exactly what amounts of their contributions were allocated toward Measure 101 as opposed to other purposes. Additionally, much of the spending related to the campaigns surrounding Measure 101 by committees other than measure or petition committees was accomplished through contributions to measure or petition committees. This means that the other types of committees may be represented as donors to the measure and petition committees discussed above.

Ballotpedia's campaign finance methodology for all ballot measures:

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

Support for "yes" vote

• Pamplin Media Group, owner of the Portland Tribune said, "A 'yes' vote on Measure 101 allows the democratic process to work, gives lawmakers a year to monitor the new financing package they passed last summer, avoids another divisive distraction from other pressing issues, and ensures that our state's most vulnerable residents get quality health care."

• The Daily Astorian said, "Forty-eight other states and the District of Columbia levy tax assessments against health care providers to fund care for low-income patients. The strategy is popular because it generates matching federal dollars. In this case, Oregon health care providers agreed to tax themselves, and insurers may not raise rates more than 1.5 percent to cover the assessment. An impressive list of more than 160 organizations in Oregon have endorsed the plan, including the medical and education communities. Given that groundswell of support, both statewide and locally, we urge you to vote “yes” on Measure 101."

• Mail Tribune said, "Oregon has been a national leader in expanding health insurance coverage to more people through innovative funding mechanisms and cost-containment measures. The plan adopted in July to keep that system going for two more years may not be perfect, but it is better than the alternative — putting as many as 350,000 Oregonians at risk of losing health coverage while the Legislature does battle over funding all over again. Without the tax proceeds, lawmakers would have to make painful cuts to the Oregon Health Plan or other parts of the state budget. The system of taxing providers a little to generate a lot of federal matching funds has been working well for more than 10 years. It would be a mistake to end it now."

• The Register-Guard said, "It’s likely that if Measure 101 is defeated, the Legislature would find a way to preserve at least part of the expanded Medicaid program and the federal money that comes with it. There’s no guarantee that those funding mechanisms would be better than the ones Measure 101 would preserve. And there’s a danger that many Oregonians would lose their health insurance, or that other important public services would be cut to save it. Oregonians should not take that risk. They should vote yes on Measure 101."

• East Oregonian said, "We sent our legislators to Salem to do a job and this is the job they did. If we don’t like it (and we don’t), then we should vote them out. Until such time, voters should approve Measure 101. In recent years, we’ve seen the number of insured Oregonians increase dramatically in the state. And with the help of coordinated care organizations, we’ve seen health outcomes improve, too. The opioid epidemic is lapping at these gains, however, and we cannot be complacent. Assessing that situation, a Band-Aid is better than pushing a still recovering patient back into the street."

• Street Roots News said, "Street Roots has endorsed Measure 101 because we know the people hanging in the balance. Hundreds of other organizations, including hospitals and labor unions, have endorsed it as well. To do no harm, Measure 101 needs to pass. Still, we support future efforts in Salem to do better, to eliminate careless spending and to find that interconnectivity on issues, challenges, opportunities and solutions that are critical to so many vulnerable Oregonians."

• The Statesman Journal said, "We encourage you to vote 'yes' on Measure 101, which basically asks voters to approve a plan the 2017 Legislature passed to provide health-insurance coverage for those who otherwise could not afford it. Let's avoid undoing coverage for Oregon's low-income children, seniors, people with disabilities, and other needy families across the state."

• The Source Weekly said, "Let's not get caught up again waiting for absolute perfection in the realm of politics. This bill will help the people who need health care the most in our state. [...] Vote against making perfect the enemy of good, and vote YES on Measure 101 this week."

• The Corvallis Gazette-Times said, "The Gazette-Times reluctantly recommends a "yes" vote on the measure [...] With all that said, we need to hold elected state officials to their promise that Measure 101 is a temporary measure. We've seen plenty of "temporary" taxes become permanent."

• The Portland Mercury said, "But we simply can’t look at what’s happening outside of our Old Town office doors and in Washington DC and think that rolling back coverage on hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Oregonians is an acceptable option. And—other than saying they “believe” they can come up with a solution—Parrish and Hayden give us absolutely no confidence that legislators will be able to plug the massive budget hole that results from a “no” vote in the short legislative session that begins in February. For these reasons, we say “yes” on Measure 101. You should, too."

Support for "no" vote

• The Bulletin said, "Virtually all Oregonians will pay this tax if Measure 101 passes, and lawmakers will get the message: Disguise a new tax by levying it on, not the user of the service but the supplier, and Oregonians will swallow it whole. Vote “no” on Measure 101."

• The Oregonian said, "Oregonians should stand against the inequity of this tax, demand that lawmakers find a fairer way to meet the Medicaid obligation and vote no on Measure 101."

• Baker City Herald said, "Measure 101 proponents contend the taxes in House Bill 2391 are necessary to prevent major cuts in the Oregon Health Plan. But the financial data show otherwise. Voters should reject those taxes and demand that lawmakers take advantage of their other options rather than increasing the burden on Oregonians already struggling to afford health insurance."

Other

• Albany Democrat-Herald said, "Opponents of Measure 101 say they have no desire to see any Oregon resident lose access to health care; instead, they say, legislators can find the money elsewhere. We're not so sure we want to take that risk. Legislators would have to find that money with little more than a year remaining in the state's two-year budget cycle. And there's considerable uncertainty surrounding the budget proposals floated as substitutes by Measure 101 opponents."

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls

See also: 2018 ballot measure polls

Lindholm Research surveyed 400 Oregon voters by telephone between December 11-13, 2017. Participants were asked, “If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Measure 101: Approves temporary assessments to fund health care for low-income individuals and families, and to stabilize health insurance premiums. Temporary assessments on insurance companies, some hospitals, and other providers of insurance or health care coverage. Insurers may not increase rates on health insurance premiums by more than 1.5 percent as a result of these assessments.” The results of this poll are shown in the table below.

When asked the same question, Lindholm found that 64.8 percent of Democrats said they supported the measure, while 28 percent said they were undecided, and 7.1 percent said they planned to vote "no". In contrast, 41.3 percent of Republicans said they supported the measure, 27.5 percent said they were undecided, and 31.2 percent said they planned to vote "no".

Oregon Measure 101 (2018)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Lindholm Research 12/11/2017 - 12/13/2017	52.0%	20.0%	28.0%	+/-5.0	400
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to [email protected].

Background

HB 2391 and Obamacare

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, provided federal funds to states that elected to expand Medicaid. States were required to provide a percentage of funds for expansion in 2017 and each year thereafter to receive the federal funds. From 2014 to 2016, the federal government covered 100 percent of the costs of state expansion of Medicaid. In 2017, the total cost that the federal government financed decreased to 95 percent. The ACA was designed to decrease the amount the federal government covers to 94 percent in 2018, 93 percent in 2019, and 90 percent in 2020 and subsequent years. As of 2017, about 350,000 people received Medicaid under the expansion in Oregon.

Oregon originally expanded Medicaid to individuals eligible under the federal ACA in 2014. The expansion was made possible by a budget bill (HB 5030) passed by the Oregon State Legislature in 2013. That bill appropriated funds to the Oregon Health Authority, which in turn used the funds to expand coverage to individuals eligible under the ACA. Because the budget bill appropriated funds for numerous uses, legislators' votes for or against the bill do not necessarily reflect their support or opposition to Medicaid expansion. However, the bill did pass largely along partisan lines. The House passed the budget bill with 35 "aye" votes and 24 "nay" votes with only one of 26 Republican members and all Democratic members voting in favor of its passage. The Senate passed the bill with 18 "yay" votes and 10 "nay" votes. Two of 14 Republican members voted in favor of the bill's passage, while all 16 Democratic members voted to pass the bill. At the time of the bill's passage, Oregon was a Democratic trifecta.

House Bill 2391 (HB 2391) was introduced into the Oregon State Legislature at the request of the House Interim Committee on Health Care. It was designed to use some of the revenue from the new assessments and taxes to cover the state's share of the costs of Medicaid expansion and, therefore, receive federal funds. HB 2391 was estimated to generate $673 million in state revenue and $1.9 billion from the federal government during the 2017-2019 fiscal year.

Medicaid expansion in other states

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, was signed into law on March 23, 2010. The ACA provided for the expansion of Medicaid to cover all individuals earning incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, which amounted to $16,394 for individuals and $33,534 for a family of four in 2016. The law was designed to provide 100 percent of funding to cover the new recipients for the first three years and to cut off federal Medicaid funding to states that chose not to expand coverage. However, the United States Supreme Court ruled in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) that the federal government could not withhold Medicaid funds from states that chose not to expand eligibility. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, this ruling had the practical effect of making Medicaid expansion optional for states. As of January 2018, 32 states and Washington, D.C., had approved Medicaid expansion, and 18 states had not.

As of January 2022, a total of 38 states and Washington, D.C., had expanded or voted to expand Medicaid, while 12 states had not. The map below provides information on Medicaid expansions by state; for states that expanded, hover over the state to view the political affiliation of the governor at the time of expansion.

From 2014 to 2016, the federal government covered 100 percent of the costs of state expansion of Medicaid. In 2017, the total cost that the federal government financed decreased to 95 percent. The ACA was designed to decrease the amount the federal government covers to 94 percent in 2018, 93 percent in 2019, and 90 percent in 2020 and subsequent years.

The Affordable Care Act had not provided tax credits to adults with household incomes less than the federal poverty line because the law had aimed to cover these people under Medicaid. In states that did not expand Medicaid, many of these adults fell into a coverage gap in which they neither qualified for Medicaid nor for federal tax credits to purchase health insurance. As of 2016, around 2.6 million people fell into this coverage gap across the 19 states that did not expand Medicaid.

On November 7, 2017, Maine voters approved an initiative designed to require Medicaid expansion; this was the first time Medicaid expansion was approved through a citizen initiative. As of January 2018, measures pertaining to Medicaid have been proposed in four other states. Groups in Idaho, Missouri, and Utah have proposed measures similar to the Maine initiative, requiring Medicaid expansion of some kind. An initiative designed to enact provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as state law, was proposed in Alaska.

Medicaid at the federal level

See also: Obamacare overview

See also: American Health Care Act of 2017

The ACA was subject to a number of lawsuits challenging some of its provisions. Four of these lawsuits were heard by the United States Supreme Court, resulting in changes to the law and how it was enforced. In addition, since the law's enactment, lawmakers in Congress have introduced and considered legislation to modify or repeal parts or all of the Affordable Care Act.

Alternative proposals to Measure 101

Rep. Julie Parrish (R-37) and Rep. Cedric Hayden (R-7), who filed the veto referendum, said there were other ways to fund the expansion of Medicaid in Oregon, including:

• Rep. Hayden said increasing the tax on small hospitals and changing how large hospitals were assessed would increase revenue to cover expansion. He stated, "It is the fix we would do if the measure is defeated."
• Rep. Parrish stated that the Oregon Health Authority had misspent funds and better management would save more money that the state could use for expansion.
• Both Rep. Hayden and Rep. Parrish also backed the idea of increasing the tax on tobacco to fund Medicaid expansion.

On January 16, 2018, Rep. Hayden and Rep. Parrish announced that legislation would be introduced into the state legislature to provide an alternative source of funding for Medicaid expansion. Their bill would expand the state's refundable tax on healthcare providers, referred to as a provider tax, to cover a range of providers, such as surgical centers and ambulance companies, not just hospitals and long-term care facilities. The expanded provider tax would collect revenue from healthcare providers, use the revenue to receive matching funds from the federal government, and then return the tax revenue to the healthcare providers.

Reactions

Janet Bauer, a policy analyst for the Oregon Center for Public Policy, said she could not comment without reading Reps. Hayden and Parrish's proposed legislation; however, Bauer said changes to funding Medicaid expansion should be debated and made during the 2019 legislative session. She said the 2018 session, an even-numbered year session, will be short compared to the 2019 session, an odd-numbered year session, and that the budget is developed during odd-numbered year sessions. She stated, "I think that it's rolling the dice to suggest that we should overturn a solution that we already have."

Yes for Healthcare, the campaign in support of Measure 101, critiqued the proposal, stating, "This is more of the same misleading tactics and should not be trusted. The only way to protect healthcare funding is Yes on Measure 101."

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Oregon

Referendum petition

In Oregon, a veto referendum is a citizen-initiated measure addressing a law that the state Legislature and governor approved. Certifying a veto referendum for the ballot requires a number of signatures equivalent to 4 percent of the votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election. As the gubernatorial special election held in 2016 did not affect signature requirements, the number required reflects the votes cast in 2014.

Supporters of a veto referendum needed to collect 58,789 valid signatures to get their measure on the ballot for an election in 2018. Signatures were due 90 days after the 2017 regular legislative adjourned on July 7, 2017, which was October 5, 2017. Certification of signatures for the veto referendum would put the bill’s implementation on hold until after the election.

On July 5, 2017, state Representatives Julie Parrish (R-37), Sal Esquivel (R-6), and Cedric Hayden (R-7) filed a petition for the veto referendum with the secretary of state's office. The veto referendum was approved for signature gathering on July 6, 2017.

On October 5, 2017, proponents of the veto referendum reported submitting 84,367 signatures to the Oregon secretary of state's office. At least 58,789 (69.68 percent) needed to be valid.

On October 16, 2017, the secretary of state indicated that Measure 101 had qualified for the ballot. Of the 82,312 signatures submitted for verification, 70,230 or 85.43 percent were found to be valid. This was more than the 58,789 valid signatures needed in order for the measure to be certified for the ballot.

Cost of signature collection:
Ballotpedia found no petition companies that received payment from the sponsors of this measure, which means signatures were likely gathered largely by volunteers. A total of $38,326.29 was spent to collect the 58,789 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $0.65. This data is based on an itemized list that indicated amounts used for signature gathering purposes. Because of how signature collection expenditure data is reported in Oregon, it is possible that other funds, not included here, were spent on signature gathering.

Bill for a special election and drafting committee

House Democrats proposed calling for a special election for the referendum on January 23, 2018, rather than the default date of November 6, 2018. On July 3, 2017, the House Rules Committee voted to amend Senate Bill 229 (SB 229), a bill related to local election requirements, to add a provision saying that a referendum against HB 2391 would be voted on at an election on January 23, 2018. On July 6, 2017, the state House voted 34 to 25, with one member excused, to approve the bill. The state Senate concurred on July 6, voting 16 to 14. Gov. Brown (D) signed the bill on August 18, 2017. The last time the state Legislature called a special election for veto referendums was in 2010.

Breakdown of House votes on SB 229
Party Affiliation	Yes	No	Abstain	Total
Democrat	34	0	1	35
Republican	0	25	0	25
Total	34	25	1	60

Breakdown of Senate votes on SB 229
Party Affiliation	Yes	No	Abstain	Total
Democrat	16	1	0	17
Republican	0	13	0	13
Total	16	14	0	30

SB 229 was also designed to create a legislative committee to draft the referendum's ballot title and ballot summary. The committee was composed of three state representatives and three state senators. The speaker of the House appointed two members of the majority party and one member of the minority party to the committee. The Senate president appointed two members of the majority party and one member of the minority party to the committee. As of 2017, Democrats controlled both chambers of the state Legislature and had four of six seats on the committee. Typically, the attorney general is responsible for writing ballot titles for referendums. In 2017, the attorney general was Ellen Rosenblum (D).

Rep. Dan Rayfield (D-16) said, “Vulnerable Oregonians can’t wait until the next General Election to take care of a medical issue for themselves or a sick child—they need certainty as quickly as possible. The January Special Election date has been used for previous referrals and provides the soonest opportunity to resolve the question.” Sen. Richard Devlin (D-19) stated, “Should it be referred and if voters actually reject the measure, we will need to figure out a way to rebalance the budget. To be quite honest, I do not know how you would balance the budget without those funds, so I think we need to know where the voters are as soon as possible.”

Sen. Ted Ferrioli (R-30), the Senate Minority Leader, responded to the call for a special election, saying, "By pursuing an oddly timed costly special election the apparent aim is to suppress voter turnout. The mechanisms they are using to accomplish this goal include excluding public comment, one-hour notice, and a stacked partisan committee. This is the result of one-party rule under the Democrats." Secretary of State Dennis Richardson (R) also criticized the action. He said, "The Oregon Constitution gives the people of Oregon the right to overrule the legislature through the referendum process. This protection ensures accountability and safeguards fundamental rights. This amendment does just the opposite."

Crafting the ballot title and summary

The Joint Interim Committee on Referendum 301 was established to write the referendum's ballot title and ballot summary. The following state legislators were appointed to serve on the committee:

Democrats

• Sen. Richard Devlin (D-19), co-chair
• Rep. Dan Rayfield (D-16), co-chair
• Sen. Ginny Burdick (D-18)
• Rep. Nancy Nathanson (D-13)

Republicans

• Sen. Jackie Winters (R-10)
• Rep. Greg Smith (R-57)

On September 5, 2017, the committee released a draft ballot title and ballot summary. SEIU 503, a supporter of HB 2391, said the draft language was unclear. Melissa Unger, the union's political director, said, "We believe voters must know what the impact of a 'no' vote is. Currently there are no numbers in this ballot title about the cost to the budget." Rep. Julie Parrish (R-37) and Rep. Cedric Hayden (R-7), two of the referendum's sponsors, also critiqued the draft, saying, "The caption does not describe the imposition of any tax whatsoever, or the dollar amount of that tax which cumulatively results in $330 million in new taxation."

On September 20, 2017, the committee finalized the ballot title and ballot summary. Rep. Julie Parrish said, "They [the committee] didn't take any of our comments to heart. The next step of this is to go to court, so that's where we're headed." She said the committee's ballot language should have included the word tax. Rep. Parrish stated, "The fact is, this is a tax. To not apply that to this ballot title we think is problematic." Legislative counsel Dexter Johnson said the language needed to use the word assessment, not tax, to describe the revenue-generating mechanism in HB 2391 because assessment is the word the bill used. He stated, "If we use the word 'tax' rather than 'assessment,' it would be likely the court would actually require modification back to the word 'assessment."

Oregon Supreme Court

On October 3, 2017, the veto referendum's petitioners asked the Oregon Supreme Court to review the measure's ballot language. On October 22, 2017, the Oregon Supreme Court directed the attorney general to revise parts of the ballot language in order to make the implications of voting yes or no on the referendum clearer. The final language differed from the original language in that it emphasized that voters were being asked to approve or reject assessments rather than funds or funding. The finalized ballot title and summary are available here. The original ballot title and summary and the final ballot title and summary are below.

Original and final ballot titles (side-by-side)

Original ballot title: " Provides funds currently budgeted to pay for health care to low-income individuals and families and for stabilizing health insurance premiums, using temporary assessments on insurance companies, some hospitals and other providers of health insurance or health care coverage. Result of “Yes” Vote: “Yes” vote provides funds that are currently budgeted to pay for health care for low-income individuals and families and individuals with disabilities and to stabilize premiums charged by insurance companies for health insurance purchased by individuals and families. Approves temporary assessments on insurance companies, some hospitals, the Public Employees’ Benefit Board and managed care organizations to provide the funds. Specifies that insurance companies may not increase rates on health insurance premiums by more than 1.5 percent as a result of the assessment. Provides that the hospital assessment may not begin without the approval of a federal agency. Result of “No” Vote: “No” vote underfunds budgeted costs for providing health care to low-income individuals and families and individuals with disabilities and for stabilizing premiums charged by insurance companies for health insurance purchased by individuals and families. Rejects temporary assessments on insurance companies, the Public Employees’ Benefit Board and managed care organizations. Delays until the later of January 1, 2018, or the date of approval by a federal agency, the temporary assessment on some hospitals. ”

Final ballot title: " Approves temporary assessments to fund health care for low-income individuals and families, and to stabilize health insurance premiums. Temporary assessments on insurance companies, some hospitals, and other providers of insurance or health care coverage. Insurers may not increase rates on health insurance premiums by more than 1.5 percent as a result of these assessments Result of “Yes” Vote: “Yes” vote approves temporary assessments on insurance companies, some hospitals, the Public Employees’ Benefit Board, and managed care organizations. Assessments provide funding for health care for low-income individuals and families, and individuals with disabilities; also stabilize premiums charged by insurance companies for health insurance purchased by individuals and families. Insurance companies may not increase rates on health insurance premiums by more than 1.5 percent as a result of the assessments. Hospital assessments may not begin without approval by a federal agency. Result of “No” Vote: “No” vote rejects temporary assessments on insurance companies, the Public Employees’ Benefit Board, and managed care organizations; and either rejects or delays temporary assessments on some hospitals. Assessments rejected (or delayed) by a “no” vote are currently budgeted to fund health care for low-income individuals and families and individuals with disabilities and for stabilizing the costs of insurance premiums. As a result, a “no” vote would underfund these budgeted costs. ”

Original and final ballot summary (side-by-side)

Original ballot summary " This measure asks voters to approve or reject five parts of House Bill 2391, enacted by the 2017 Oregon Legislature to address certain health care funding issues. House Bill 2391 provided funding to pay costs for providing health care to low-income adults, children, families and individuals with disabilities, and to stabilize premiums charged by insurance companies for health insurance purchased by individuals and families. House Bill 2391 provided the funding through a 1.5 percent assessment on premiums and premium equivalents (defined) of health insurance companies, the Public Employees’ Benefit Board and managed care organizations for a two-year period, and an additional 0.7 percent assessment on the net revenue of some hospitals that begins on October 6, 2017, and ends on July 1, 2019. This measure asks voters to approve or reject the assessments on insurance companies, the Public Employees’ Benefit Board and managed care organizations and only the portion of the hospital assessment that is in effect from October 6, 2017, through the later of January 1, 2018, or the date a federal agency approves other changes to the assessment made by House Bill 2391. The measure does not ask voters to approve or reject the portions of the hospital assessment that are in effect beginning on the later of January 1, 2018, or the date of federal agency approval. ”

Final ballot summary: " This measure asks voters to approve or reject temporary assessments created as part of House Bill 2391, enacted by the 2017 Oregon Legislature to address certain health care funding issues. The House Bill provided funding to pay costs for providing health care to low-income adults, children, families, and individuals with disabilities, and to stabilize premiums charged by insurance companies for health insurance purchased by individuals and families. The House Bill provided the funding through 1.5 percent assessments on premiums and premium equivalents (defined in the House Bill) of health insurance companies, the Public Employees’ Benefit Board, and managed care organizations for a two-year period, and additional 0.7 percent assessments on the net revenue of some hospitals that begins on October 6, 2017, and ends on July 1, 2019. This measure asks voters to approve or reject the assessments on insurance companies, the Public Employees’ Benefit Board, and managed care organizations, and specifies that insurance companies may not increase rates on health insurance premiums by more than 1.5 percent as a result of these assessments. If this measure passes, the assessments on some hospitals will be approved, subject to approval by a federal agency. If the measure does not pass, the assessments on some hospitals will either be rejected, or delayed until approved by a federal agency. ”

HB 2391 in the state legislature

As HB 2391 was designed to increase revenue, a three-fifths vote was required in each legislative chamber to pass the bill. On June 15, 2017, the 60-member Oregon House of Representatives voted 36 to 23, with one member excused, to pass HB 2391. All 35 House Democrats and one Republican, Rep. Sal Esquivel, voted for the bill. Rep. Esquivel's vote allowed the bill to pass with a three-fifths vote; otherwise, the bill would have been defeated. He later joined the sponsors of the veto referendum campaign.

On June 21, 2017, the 30-member Oregon Senate voted 20 to 10 to pass the bill. Three Senate Republicans joined the chamber's 17 Democrats in approving the bill. The remaining 10 Republicans voted against HB 2391.

On July 3, 2017, Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed HB 2391 into law.

Vote in the Oregon House of Representatives June 15,2017
Requirement: Simple majority (50 percent) vote of those voting in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 31  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	36	23	1
Total percent	60.00%	38.33%	1.67%
Democrat	35	0	0
Republican	1	23	1

Vote in the Oregon Senate June 21, 2017
Requirement: Simple majority (50 percent) vote of those voting in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 16  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	20	10	0
Total percent	66.67%	33.33%	0.00%
Democrat	17	0	0
Republican	4	10	0

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Oregon

Poll times

Oregon is an all-mail voting state. Each county provides privacy booths that voters can use to mark their ballot. Typically, voters can return their completed ballot at the same location.

Registration requirements

Check your voter registration status here.

To register to vote in Oregon, one must be a resident of Oregon, a United States citizen, and at least 16 years old. Voters must be at least 18 years old by the day of the election in order to receive a ballot. Potential voters can register online or by mailing in a voter registration form to your county election office. The deadline to register is 21 days before the election.

Automatic registration

Oregon implemented automatic voter registration in 2016. For more information, click here.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Oregon has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

Oregon does not allow same-day voter registration.

Residency requirements

To register to vote in Oregon, you must be a resident of the state.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Oregon does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration.

Verifying your registration

The Oregon Secretary of State’s Office allows residents to check their voter registration status online by visiting this website.

Voter ID requirements

Oregon is an all-mail voting state. When registering to vote, voters must provide their driver's license number or state ID card number. If voters can not provide this information, they can print and sign a online voter registration form and mail it to their county election office to complete their registration.

See also

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• Taxes on the ballot
• Healthcare on the ballot
• 2018 legislative sessions
• Medicaid

Oregon

• Oregon ballot measures
• Oregon ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

State overview

Partisan control

This section details the partisan control of federal and state positions in Oregon heading into the 2018 elections.

Congressional delegation

• Following the 2016 elections, Democrats held both U.S. Senate seats in Oregon.
• Democrats held four of five U.S. House seats in Oregon.

State executives

• As of September 2018, Democrats held three of 11 state executive positions, Republicans held one, and the remaining positions were officially nonpartisan.
• The governor of Oregon was Democrat Kate Brown. The state held an election for governor on November 6, 2018.

State legislature

• Democrats controlled both chambers of the Oregon State Legislature. They had a 35-25 majority in the state House and a 17-13 majority in the state Senate.

Trifecta status

• Oregon was a Democratic trifecta, meaning that the Democratic Party controlled the office of the governor, the state House, and the state Senate.

2018 elections

See also: Oregon elections, 2018

Oregon held elections for the following positions in 2018:

• 18 U.S. House seats
• Governor
• One lower state executive position
• 17 of 30 state Senate seats
• 60 state House seats
• Municipal elections in Portland and Multnomah County

Demographics

Demographic data for Oregon
	Oregon	U.S.
Total population:	4,024,634	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	95,988	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	85.1%	73.6%
Black/African American:	1.8%	12.6%
Asian:	4%	5.1%
Native American:	1.2%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.4%	0.2%
Two or more:	4.1%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	12.3%	17.1%
Bildung
High school graduation rate:	89.8%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	30.8%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$51,243	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	18.4%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Oregon. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

As of July 2016, Oregon's three largest cities were Portland (pop. est. 647,805), Salem (pop. est. 169,798), and Eugene (pop. est. 168,916).

State election history

This section provides an overview of federal and state elections in Oregon from 2000 to 2016. All data comes from the Oregon Secretary of State.

Historical elections

Presidential elections, 2000-2016

This chart shows the results of the presidential election in Oregon every year from 2000 to 2016.

Election results (President of the United States), Oregon 2000-2016
Year	First-place candidate	First-place candidate votes (%)	Second-place candidate	Second-place candidate votes (%)	Margin of victory (%)
2016	Hillary Clinton	50.1%	Donald Trump	39.1%	11.0%
2012	Barack Obama	54.2%	Mitt Romney	42.1%	12.1%
2008	Barack Obama	56.7%	John McCain	40.4%	16.3%
2004	John Kerry	51.3%	George W. Bush	47.2%	4.1%
2000	Al Gore	47.0%	George W. Bush	46.5%	0.5%

U.S. Senate elections, 2000-2016

This chart shows the results of U.S. Senate races in Oregon from 2000 to 2016. Every state has two Senate seats, and each seat goes up for election every six years. The terms of the seats are staggered so that roughly one-third of the seats are up every two years.

Election results (U.S. Senator), Oregon 2000-2016
Year	First-place candidate	First-place candidate votes (%)	Second-place candidate	Second-place candidate votes (%)	Margin of victory (%)
2016	Ron Wyden	56.6%	Mark Callahan	33.4%	23.2%
2014	Jeff Merkley	55.7%	Monica Wehby	36.9%	18.8%
2010	Ron Wyden	57.2%	Jim Huffman	39.3%	17.9%
2008	Jeff Merkley	48.9%	Gordon Smith	45.6%	3.3%
2004	Ron Wyden	63.4%	Al King	31.8%	32.6%
2002	Gordon Smith	56.2%	Bill Bradbury	39.6%	16.6%

Gubernatorial elections, 2000-2016

This chart shows the results of the four gubernatorial elections held between 2000 and 2016. Gubernatorial elections are held every four years in Oregon.

Election results (Governor), Oregon 2000-2016
Year	First-place candidate	First-place candidate votes (%)	Second-place candidate	Second-place candidate votes (%)	Margin of victory (%)
2016	Kate Brown	50.9%	Bud Pierce	43.1%	7.8%
2014	John Kitzhaber	49.9%	Dennis Richardson	44.1%	5.8%
2010	John Kitzhaber	49.3%	Chris Dudleyy	47.8%	1.5%
2006	Ted Kulongoski	50.7%	Ron Saxton	42.8%	7.9%
2002	Ted Kulongoski	49.0%	Kevin Mannix	46.2%	2.8%

Congressional delegation, 2000-2016

This chart shows the number of Democrats and Republicans who were elected to represent Oregon in the U.S. House from 2000 to 2016. Elections for U.S. House seats are held every two years.

Congressional delegation, Oregon 2000-2016
Year	Republicans	Republicans (%)	Democrats	Democrats (%)	Balance of power
2016	1	20%	4	80%	D+3
2014	1	20%	4	80%	D+3
2012	1	20%	4	80%	D+3
2010	1	20%	4	80%	D+3
2008	1	20%	4	80%	D+3
2006	1	20%	4	80%	D+3
2004	1	20%	4	80%	D+3
2002	1	20%	4	80%	D+3
2000	1	20%	4	80%	D+3

Trifectas, 1992-2017

A state government trifecta occurs when one party controls both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's office.

Oregon Party Control: 1992-2024
Sixteen years of Democratic trifectas  •  No Republican trifectas
Scroll left and right on the table below to view more years.

Year	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	00	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24
Governor	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D
Senate	D	D	D	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	S	S	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D
House	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	D	D	D	D	S	S	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D

External links

• Measure 101
• Military/Overseas Voters' Guide
• Voters Pamphlet

Support for "yes" vote links

• Yes for Healthcare website
• Yes for Healthcare Facebook
• Yes for Healthcare Twitter
• Yes for Healthcare YouTube

Support for "no" vote links

• Stop Healthcare Taxes website
• Stop Healthcare Taxes Facebook

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Oregon 2018 Medicaid Healthcare Tax. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Oregon Measure 101, Healthcare Insurance Premiums Tax for Medicaid Referendum (January 2018) - Google News