Lawmakers on Nov. 17 heard detailed briefings from the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) and the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) on agency‑prepared options to achieve up to 5% reductions in their budgets, an exercise requested by the Legislative Fiscal Office in response to a projected state revenue shortfall and federal changes under HR1.

OHA presenters framed their package as a menu of options, not agency recommendations, totaling approximately $914,000,000 in potential reductions across fund types, including roughly $312,000,000 in general fund. OHA said it organized options into five rationale categories — externally imposed reductions (statutory/federal), administrative adjustments, recent biennium investments, deferred program expansions, and current service‑level reductions — and sequenced items from administrative savings toward programmatic impacts. Rochelle Layton, OHA’s chief financial officer, emphasized that the agency sought to protect core statutory obligations (including the Oregon State Hospital), assess equity impacts and preserve priority initiatives while identifying potential administrative savings such as vacancy management and contract adjustments.

ODHS Acting Director Dana Bridal and CFO Rob Coduri described ODHS’s parallel exercise. ODHS reported it solicited rapid partner feedback via a survey (Oct. 17–30) that yielded 823 responses representing roughly 400 partner organizations; respondents prioritized stability, equity, and protection for older adults and people with disabilities. ODHS said the 5% options were presented in incremental tranches (2.5% then 5%) and that the first tranche combined administrative adjustments and time‑limited options. Rob Coduri said the agency’s 5% framing equates to roughly $372,000,000 in general‑fund‑level options and emphasized uncertainty because the most recent caseload forecasts were not fully incorporated into the short‑turnaround exercise.

Lawmakers pressed ODHS on workforce and direct‑service impacts. Rob Coduri said 176 positions had been priced in the first 2.5% tranche and that those positions were a mix of filled and vacant roles; ODHS also reported instituting a hiring pause. Committee members and Senator Gelser Bloem raised substantial concerns that reductions to the Office of Developmental Disability Services (ODDS) appear disproportionately large at the 2.5% level versus other divisions and that documentation did not describe people‑level impacts for ODDS the way it did for other programs. ODHS said the distribution was not intentional, that further technical iterations and caseload forecasts are needed, and that ODHS plans additional partner engagement.

Members also raised process concerns about the condensed timeline and off‑the‑record discussions with providers; leadership said no final decisions would be made before the short session and that policy committees will handle statutory changes that might be required. The committee requested additional analysis, side‑by‑side comparisons with previous reduction exercises, and continued public engagement before any final action in February’s short session.

The presentations were informational; no motions on reduction options were taken at the meeting. OHA and ODHS emphasized these options could change as forecasts, CMS approvals and partner feedback evolve.