Two Oregon lawmakers are calling on major insurance companies to stop using their own internal wildfire risk maps to drop homeowners’ policies — at least until next year.

In a Friday press release, Sens. Anthony Broadman, D-Bend, and Mike McLane, R-Powell Butte, said they sent a joint letter to major insurance providers — including State Farm, All State and Liberty Mutual — calling them to pause this practice until January 2026.

“Constituents contact us with increasing frequency to say that they have been ‘dropped’ or not renewed by one of you,” the letter reads, calling it a “rigged system.”

Broadman and McLane asked the companies to respond to their demand by Monday. This comes ahead of a committee vote on a bill that would repeal the state’s own wildfire risk map. While insurance companies are prohibited from using the state’s map to make policy decisions, these companies have long used mapping data from other sources.

The problem with the companies’ internal maps, the two Central Oregon lawmakers say, is insurers’ reliance on mapping data instead of on-the-ground assessments. Broadman and McLane specifically call out insurance companies’ use of Verisk — a company that uses property data and aerial images taken by drones to help insurers determine wildfire risk.

Some states are considering limiting insurers’ use of drones to take aerial photos of people’s homes and use that information to make policy decisions.

Verisk executives appear to be aware of the risk of such limits on their business.

“To get ahead of what we consider to be an emerging issue, Verisk is actively working with the insurance trades to develop information to respond to growing regulatory and legislative concerns over the use of aerial imagery and analytics,” Verisk vice president of government affairs Nancy Crespo said in a video meant for insurers earlier this month.

Climate change is making wildfires, floods and hurricanes more frequent and severe, and that’s driving up insurance companies’ payouts. But in Oregon, insurers have consistently made money off homeowners this past decade, according to data compiled by the New York Times.

Oregon homeowners are also getting much less than what they pay for through insurance. In 2023, Oregon insurers paid out less than 52 cents for every dollar they collected in premiums, despite premiums increasing by nearly 11% the previous year — according to data compiled by the Consumer Federation of America, a nonprofit that advocates for consumers’ rights.

The Oregon Health Authority said Thursday the Trump administration has canceled roughly $117 million in COVID-era grants.

It’s part of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services plan to cut nearly $12 billion in health care grants for state and local health departments nationwide.

Some of the grants were not scheduled to end for more than a year, according to OHA.

The cuts include public health dollars, according to Sarah Lochner, executive director of the Oregon Coalition of Local Health Officials. She said that’s money that counties were using to investigate respiratory illness outbreaks in places like nursing homes and shelters.

“They either have to decide to lay people off immediately, while this is sorted out, or they have to figure out how to come up with the extra money to keep people on staff, until this is figured out,” Lochner said.

The Trump administration restructures federal health agencies, cuts 20,000 jobs

According to OHA, one grant that was cut had helped establish its Equity Office, which provided technical assistance and training to rural health care providers, tribes, local public health departments and other organizations on how to improve health in communities experiencing health inequities.

The canceled grants also include funding for the 988 crisis line and for substance use treatment and recovery.

In a press release, OHA said it will continue to evaluate the impacts of the cuts, including whether they are legal.

Lochner said counties across Oregon are already facing a difficult budget cycle due to inflation.

Trump team revokes $11 billion in funding for addiction, mental health care

She said that’s making it harder to manage these unexpected cuts.

“Not only does this affect counties in their ability to provide for their employees and to provide services, but ultimately it comes down to providing for the health of the community,” Lochner said. “We are all safer when public health has the tools it needs to contain communicable diseases.”

On Thursday, HHS also announced its plans to lay off 10,000 full-time workers and consolidate its agencies, which include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

You’ve posted a job, screened a few resumes, and started your first interview with a promising candidate. Before discussing compensation, you ask a seemingly simple question: “What did you make in your last role?” Under Oregon law, that question is already off-limits. A new bill under consideration would extend these rules further—and change how employers navigate not just compensation conversations, but also criminal background checks and job postings.

House Bill 2746, introduced during Oregon’s 2025 legislative session, proposes a sweeping update to state employment regulations by combining three interrelated policies—pay transparency, salary history restrictions, and fair chance hiring practices—into a single compliance framework. This approach reflects a broader national trend to address systemic barriers to employment through unified legislation rather than isolated reforms.

Compensation Disclosure and Pay Transparency

At the heart of HB 2746 is a proposal to mandate proactive compensation disclosures. If passed, the bill would require employers and employment agencies to include wage or wage range information, a general description of benefits, and any other compensation in all job postings. This requirement would apply not only to external advertisements, but also to internal opportunities related to promotions and transfers.

In addition to postings, the bill would require employers to provide the same compensation information:

• To job applicants upon request and before any compensation discussion or offer;
• To employees at the time of hire, transfer, or promotion;
• And once per calendar year, if requested.

These requirements would apply to any position that could be performed in whole or in part within Oregon—including remote or hybrid roles.

This marks a significant shift. While some states—such as California, ColoradoNew York, and New York—have already adopted similar requirements, Oregon currently has no statewide pay transparency mandate. HB 2746 would place Oregon among a growing number of jurisdictions emphasizing compensation clarity to help reduce wage disparities and foster transparency in hiring.

Salary History Inquiries: Expanded Restrictions and Clarified Boundaries

Oregon law already prohibits employers from requesting salary history before making a job offer that includes a pay amount. HB 2746 does not change the core restriction but expands its reach to include employment agencies, which are currently outside the scope of the statute.

The bill preserves a key nuance that’s important for employers to understand: while it prohibits asking about past pay, it does not prevent employers from asking about salary expectations. Employers may still ask questions such as:

“What are your compensation expectations for this role?”

However, questions that solicit information about previous wages remain impermissible unless the candidate voluntarily discloses that information after an offer is made, and the employer receives written authorization to verify it.

This clarification can help employers strike a balance between compensation strategy and compliance as they assess candidate fit within established salary bands.

Criminal History Inquiries: Reinforcing Fair Chance Hiring

HB 2746 also revisits Oregon’s existing “ban-the-box” law, which prohibits employers from inquiring into an applicant’s criminal history prior to an initial interview—or before a conditional offer, if no interview occurs. The bill retains that timing restriction and explicitly extends it to employment agencies, ensuring that recruiters and staffing partners adhere to the same standards as direct employers.

The bill outlines specific exceptions for roles where background checks are required by federal, state, or local law, or where the employer operates in law enforcement or the criminal justice system.

Notably, the bill does not incorporate elements of Portland’s Fair Chance Ordinance, such as the requirement to conduct individualized assessments or provide written notice if an offer is rescinded due to a candidate’s criminal record. However, HB 2746 does create a statewide baseline that would standardize compliance expectations for employment agencies across Oregon.

Implications for Employers

If passed, HB 2746 would affect multiple facets of hiring and talent management, particularly for organizations with multistate operations, remote roles, or third-party recruiting partnerships.

Employers and employment agencies would need to:

• Review and update job postings to ensure wage ranges and benefits are clearly disclosed;
• Confirm interview guides exclude questions related to salary history, while safely allowing discussions about expectations;
• Adjust the timing of criminal background checks to align with interview or offer stages;
• Train recruiters, hiring managers, and HR professionals on the new requirements.

Employers would also be required to:

• Retain compensation-related records—including wage ranges and wage history—for the duration of employment and two years after separation.

Importantly, HB 2746 does not contain a preemption clause, meaning local ordinances like Portland’s Fair Chance Ordinance would continue to apply. Employers operating in or hiring for roles based in Portland must still comply with more restrictive local requirements, such as conducting individualized assessments and providing written notice when adverse action is taken based on criminal history.

Preparing for a Potential Shift

HB 2746 reflects a broader legislative trend: the convergence of pay equity, fair chance hiring, and anti-discrimination measures into integrated compliance frameworks. While the bill remains under consideration, it signals where employment regulation is heading—not just in Oregon, but nationwide.

Employers who proactively evaluate their hiring processes, compensation disclosures, and background screening practices will be better prepared to adapt should the bill become law. Those who wait may find themselves navigating compliance after the fact.

As regulations continue to evolve, employers may need to ask not just whether their hiring practices are competitive—but whether they’re compliant, equitable, and ready for what’s next.