Skip to main content

Single Payer, Other Health Issues, Divide Candidates for House District 36

Campaign contributions and their stance on single payer show stark differences
April 16, 2012

April 16, 2012—Sometimes it’s difficult to distinguish the policy beliefs of one Portland liberal running for office from another, but when it comes to healthcare, it’s relatively easy to drawn lines in the sand between Sharon Meieran and Jennifer Williamson.

They’re competing to win the upcoming May 15 Democratic primary for House District 36, which includes parts of downtown and southwest Portland. Rep. Mary Nolan (D-Portland), who currently holds that seat, is running against Portland City Commissioner Amanda Fritz for Portland City Council.

Whoever wins the primary is likely to become the district's new legislator. There is one Republican running, but the district is a reliably safe Democratic seat.

An emergency room doctor at Portland Adventist Health Center, Meieran was motivated to run for the House seat by “what [she] sees on the front lines everyday,” and is also president of the Oregon College of Emergency Physicians and a member of the Oregon Medical Association’s Legislative Committee.

On the job, she’s seen people showing up in the emergency room with untreated mental and substance abuse issues, homelessness, and other problems that effect their health, and believes she lends “a unique perspective at a unique time,” given the transformation of Oregon’s healthcare system.

Williamson, on the other hand, wants to make certain that Oregon continues investing in programs and services that offer opportunities. She’s worked as a lobbyist for Portland State University and more recently for Komen Oregon.

A fourth generation Oregonian, she and her five siblings were the first in their family to attend college, and attributes that, in part, to financial aid from the state. “The state invested in us,” she said. “Kids and families don’t have that opportunity anymore.

Where Meieran and Williamson differ most starkly is whether a single payer system—which would provide universal healthcare to every Oregonian -- could be successfully implemented.

“Single payer makes the most sense,” said Williamson because it assures that everyone will have health coverage and save the state money. Creating a single payer system would also generate healthcare jobs and minimize labor disputes.

Williamson’s heard from teachers who’ve foregone pay increases over the last three years because of rising healthcare costs, yet another reason, she said, for a single payer system.

If elected, Williamson’s eager to work with Rep. Michael Dembrow (D-Portland) to introduce single payer legislation, and is also planning a trip to Vermont to learn how that state has been able to create a single payer system.

Nevertheless, she realizes that she’ll face a tough battle winning over her colleagues. “[The healthcare industry] is a hard industry to come up against. People aren’t ready to take it on.”

Meieran said she also supports a single payer system calling it “the ideal type” of healthcare system. She views CCO development as an important first step in the direction of creating a single payer health system, not only because CCOs will widen access to preventive care and integrate mental healthcare, but also because a CCO's global budget is similar to how a single payer system work on the state-wide level.

But Meieran doesn’t believe it’s possible to start a single payer system in Oregon in the short-term. “It’s not practical or feasible…from an economic standpoint, provider standpoint, and every aspects of the delivery system," she said.

The candidates also differed slightly on the Legislature’s role in coordinated care organizations, which will begin integrating physical and mental healthcare for 650,000 people on the Oregon Health Plan in August and could become the delivery system for the state’s school teachers and public employees.

“This is the beginning of the process,” said Meieran, who doesn’t believe the Legislature should monitor CCO development, but believes it’s essential to provide preventive services and fund school-based centers.

From Williamson’s perspective, CCOs “have to be held accountable. This is the system we’re saying we need in the state.”

She thinks the Legislature should hold hearings and either change the rules or draft new legislation to make certain CCOs live up to their expectations while emphasizing prevention and integrating mental health.

“I’m really focused on budget issues,” she said. “It goes back to the general proposition that when we invest dollars, we do it in the smartest way possible.”

The myriad of problems currently faced by the healthcare system is “about healthcare finance,” she said. “It’s a budget issue, and figuring out the best investments for the best outcomes.”

Merieran Campaign Supported by Healthcare Industry

It’s obvious from the campaign contributions that Meieran is favored by the healthcare industry. According to ORESTAR, she’s received contributions from dozens of healthcare organizations, including Douglas County Independent Practice Association (DCIPA, which gave $1,500) and Doctors for Healthy Communities ($1,500).

The political action committees of the Oregon Medical Association, Oregon Healthcare Association and Oregon Hospital Association, also each gave her $2,500. Other notable contributors include Regence Oregon and Chuck Hofmann, whose term on the Oregon Health Policy Board recently ended.

Williamson, on the other hand, has a more diverse list of contributors, including the Oregon Business Association, Oregon Nurses PAC (which gave $5,000), Oregon AFSCME, the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, Planned Parenthood and numerous individual lawyers (Williamson has a law degree from the University of Oregon). Her largest contribution is a whopping $15,000 from Phil Knight, the founder and owner of Nike.

Meieran said her contributions won’t affect her judgment or policy decisions as a legislator. Williamson disagrees. “That idea that it doesn’t matter is wrong,” she said.

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 09:52 Permalink

It's not surprising to me, that Meieran would be so negative with regards to changing the broken profit driven health care system she's a part of 'on the front lines'... The Governor is looking to change the system because it doesn't work now. My vote is for someone willing to provide preventative natural healthcare for all, equally. My vote is for Jennifer Williamson.
Submitted by Marianne Parshley on Fri, 05/04/2012 - 12:38 Permalink

Dear Anon. Sharon Meieran's work on the front lines is NOT to support the profit driven insurance industry, but rather to serve her patients regardless of what their finances are. It has been the lens through which she views the brokenness and diseased state of our broken health care system. As an employeed physician, she fortunately does not need to view each patient as an insurance payment, but rather can view each patient as a human being needing the best, most cost effective care that they can afford with or without insurance. This puts her squarely on the side of her patients, not the insurance industry. Marianne
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 10:05 Permalink

I am a physician advocate for health care reform. House District 36 is my district. Oregon's health care crisis will not be solved by those who support single payer - it will be solved those who support single payer NOW. We need legislators who will strive to make single payer happen during their term. Jennifer Williamson made that commitment. So far, Sharon Meieran has not. I will vote for the candidate most likely to make single payer a reality. Samuel Metz, MD
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 11:45 Permalink

I think these are two good candidates who must distinguish themselves from their opponent. The single payer issue is symbolic at best and pandering to certain constituencies at worst. Tagging our public health care dollar to public health outcomes is the huge battle that must now be engaged, not the pursuit a distracting piece of divisive legislation.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 20:15 Permalink

A few things: First, Jennifer is a lobbyist by profession, and has a much broader client list than this reporter mentions, including Pacificorp. Second, both candidates specifically say that they support single payer, despite the headline to the contrary. And third, that closing sentence is unfair at best, and clearly biased at worst. Was Jennifer not also asked if her contributors would influence her? Or did she say yes?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 21:27 Permalink

Sharon, by virtue of her front line job caring for patients who have fallen through cracks in insurance coverage, or access to care, sees clearly what all of us in healthcare today recognize as a crisis developing in our country. This crisis is rooted in the lack of access to affordable, quality healthcare by millions of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Oregonians and is also rooted in the unsustainable funding model we have now have. Lack of access is fundamentally related to lack of insurance coverage, and a lack of health care providers in some areas. I have seen Sharon working for years as an advocate for Oregonians in this arena, beyond just what she does during her shifts in the ER, because of her experience and compassion. In Oregon, by public mandate, we are in the process of determining our road towards improving access by designing a system that moves us towards universal coverage. A single-payer system is just one of many different ways being used around the globe to provide universal coverage, not the only one. Given that a majority of Americans polled are opposed to the health insurance mandate in the Affordable Care Act (1), to advocate a move to a single-payer system immediately would be naive. Moving Oregon and the country to universal coverage has been and will be a process that requires building coalitions between all the different stakeholders, so that Oregonians and Americans design a plan which they can support. This takes time. I believe that Sharon understands that we need to attend to the business of expanding coverage and caring for our community members now, while simultaneously finding a way to encourage and grow the political will for change in Oregon so we can move forward to do what is right, and what is fundamentally necessary for the survival of our health care system: the universal coverage and access to healthcare for all Oregonians. A “Doctor in the House” like Sharon Meieran is what Oregon needs. She understands the cost of not changing the system. She sees it every day at work. She has experience and has put hard work into bringing people together, building coalitions and leading change. Having a physician with her unique brand of knowledge, commitment, experience and with her passion for her patients and community involved in designing how we as we proceed in Oregon is vital, now as well as in the future. It is a journey, not a goal, and Oregon needs her expertise and help in mapping out the route. 1) PBS News Hour blog: March 27, 2012 at 12:56 PM EDT; http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/03/what-is-the-individual-mandate-and-what-if-its-declared-unconstitutional.html Marianne Parshley, MD (front line primary care Internist)
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 04/19/2012 - 06:08 Permalink

As long as the insurance companies are involved in our health care we are doomed. There will never be equal playing field for the consumer. We will be taken 'to the cleaners' every time. Single payer is the only solution if there is to be a decent health care system for us all. We CAN work out the problems with the Taft Hartly Act. WE CAN WORK out the problems in every direction, but there must be the will to change for the sake of us all. Thank you, Muriel Wentzien, Portland, Oregon
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 04/19/2012 - 17:32 Permalink

Dear Anonymous, You are right it will be an insurance company but a not for profit entity. Older folks love their Medicare....just try to take it away. There is a way to provide health care for all. It is my belief that is a right. A moral duty to care for our people. We can work together on this. Costs are spiraling and anyone who has studied the situation knows that private insurance entities create more problems than they solve. Thanks, Muriel