Oregon Universal Health Plan
Snapshot · October 2, 2026 · not liveWhat SB 1089 (2023) committed the state to, who committed to each part, and where it stands
Start here: one promise, four steps
In 2023 Oregon passed SB 1089, which set up a board to design a universal health plan for everyone who lives in Oregon. This page breaks that law into 19 promises: who committed to what, to whom, and whether it has happened. Each status cites a public record, listed under Sources. This is a snapshot from October 2, 2026 and is not updated live.
Step 1: One promise
Everything on this page is built from promises like this one.
- Who promised
- Universal Health Plan Governance Board
- Promised to
- Oregon Legislature
- The promise
- “Hire an executive director and staff for policy analysis and administration”
- How it's checked
- Promiser's own report, by UHPGB report to the Legislature
- Status
- Confirmed keptThe director's seat was vacant in early 2025. A new executive director started in April 2025, with an executive assistant in June and a senior policy advisor in July.
Step 2: Promises lean on each other
7 other promises depend on this one:
- Governance Board: Send the Legislature a status report by 1 December 2025 (confirmed kept)
- Governance Board: Plan an independent public corporation to run the Universal Health Plan (no verdict yet)
- Governance Board: Plan a Universal Health Plan Trust Fund, separate from the General Fund (no verdict yet)
- and 4 more.
And it leans on 2 itself: Legislature: “Fund the board's work for 2023–25: $1,442,576 to DCBS and $412,870 to OHA” (confirmed kept); Governor: “Appoint nine board members, each confirmed by the Senate” (confirmed kept).
Step 3: What if it broke?
This one was kept. Suppose it hadn't been: the What-if says 6 of those 7 promises would become less likely to be kept.
The other one, Governance Board: "Evaluate how to work with Oregon's nine federally recognized tribes", doesn't move. No one is assigned to check it, and the model gives no weight to a link into a promise nobody checks.
That is what the map is for: seeing what else a slip would reach. The What-if is a model, not a forecast.
Step 4: What we found
The groundwork was kept, but the plan itself slipped, because financing did. The law required the comprehensive plan by 15 September 2026. In August the board moved it to 1 December, citing uncertainty over how to pay for it.
The rest of this page is the detail on all 19 promises.
Where the 19 promises stand
Assessment
The groundwork was kept. The board was created, funded and fully seated, a director was hired, and both required status reports arrived on time.
The plan itself slipped, because financing did. The comprehensive plan was due by law on 15 September 2026. In August the board voted to move it to 1 December, citing uncertainty over how to pay for it, and members said what they expect to deliver is an interim report, not a comprehensive plan.
Most of the plan's parts are still preliminary. The public corporation and the trust fund have preliminary proposals; the financing design is contested; the federal waiver path is uncertain.
Overall, 9 of 19 promises are confirmed kept, 3 are slipping or broken, and 7 have no verdict yet.
Overall
: 73 of 100
The average of every promise's status (confirmed kept 100, no verdict yet 60, slipping 30, no way to check 20, broken 0).
69 of 100
How settled these statuses are. It is low where nobody has checked.
Health by area
Promise score and certainty for each area, out of 100.
What to check first
Where a fresh check would tell us the most, in order.
Governance Board: Send the Legislature a status report by 1 December 2026
Checking it now adds the most certainty.
No verdict yetU17
Governance Board: Evaluate how to work with Oregon's nine federally recognized tribes
No one is assigned to check it.
No verdict yetU15
Governance Board: Hire an executive director and staff for policy analysis and administration
7 other promises depend on this one. Only the party that made it reports on it.
Confirmed keptU05
Governance Board: Present a comprehensive plan for the Universal Health Plan to the Legislature and the Governor by 15 September 2026
Checking it now adds the most certainty.
BrokenU16
Governance Board: Plan an independent public corporation to run the Universal Health Plan
Only the party that made it reports on it.
No verdict yetU09
Technical detailsModel diagnostics, k values, and cycle projections behind the summary above.
Network Health (same number as the promise score)
73 out of 100
Verification Dynamics
Bayesian certainty — how confident we are in the health assessment.
Dynamical regime distribution
Verification Priorities
?Promises where verifying NOW has the highest marginal impact on network confidence.
- U1776%Composting risk
Governance Board: Send the Legislature a status report by 1 December 2026
Composting risk (k=0.43) — approaching verification window closure. 3 review periods without assessment.
Resolution expected by cycle 5Optimal review: every 3 cyclesLong-term: resolution trending · P(met) at cycle 10: 72% · P(not met): 2% - U1574%Composting risk
Governance Board: Evaluate how to work with Oregon's nine federally recognized tribes
Composting risk (k=0.34) — approaching verification window closure. 3 review periods without assessment.
Resolution expected by cycle 3Optimal review: every 3 cycles (reviewed more often than it can change)Long-term: resolution trending · P(met) at cycle 10: 76% · P(not met): 11% - U0563%Bottleneck
Governance Board: Hire an executive director and staff for policy analysis and administration
Structural bottleneck: 7 downstream promises depend on this. Currently well-verified — confirm it's holding.
- U1652%Composting risk
Governance Board: Present a comprehensive plan for the Universal Health Plan to the Legislature and the Governor by 15 September 2026
Composting risk (k=0.43) — approaching verification window closure.
- U0951%
Governance Board: Plan an independent public corporation to run the Universal Health Plan
Transitional regime (k=0.55) — could go either way.
Resolution expected by cycle 5Optimal review: every 3 cyclesLong-term: resolution trending · P(met) at cycle 10: 72% · P(not met): 2%
High-Leverage Promises
Ranked by how much else would slip if each promise broke, in the model's what-if engine. Ranks only.
Reliabilities are default estimates, not measured.
Structural Diagnostic
Five-field analysis: epidemiology · FMEA · information theory · incentive alignment. Each applies a published model's form to this network's structure; no coefficient was fitted to promise data.
Cascade Risk
A single violation is unlikely to cascade beyond its direct dependents.
R₀ = 1.37 (network) · R₀ hubs = 1.86
Watch list: slipping or weakly verified
Answers a different question from High-Leverage Promises: which promises are currently at risk and least checked, not which hold the plan up.
Ranked by Risk Priority Number (RPN = Severity × Occurrence × Detection). Network reliability: 61.4%.
Severity 8 · Occurrence 7 · Detection 7
High severity: failure cascades to 3 downstream promises across 2 domains. High likelihood of failure based on current status (degraded). Hard to detect: verification is self-report.
Severity 6 · Occurrence 5 · Detection 10
Moderate severity: failure cascades to 2 downstream promises across 2 domains. Moderate likelihood of failure based on current status (declared). Hard to detect: verification is none.
Severity 6 · Occurrence 7 · Detection 7
Moderate severity: failure cascades to 2 downstream promises across 2 domains. High likelihood of failure based on current status (degraded). Hard to detect: verification is self-report.
Severity 6 · Occurrence 5 · Detection 7
Moderate severity: failure cascades to 2 downstream promises across 2 domains. Moderate likelihood of failure based on current status (declared). Hard to detect: verification is self-report.
Severity 6 · Occurrence 5 · Detection 7
Moderate severity: failure cascades to 2 downstream promises across 2 domains. Moderate likelihood of failure based on current status (declared). Hard to detect: verification is self-report.
Verification Infrastructure
59% of this network's state is unobservable.
Incentive Alignment
Highest Agency Cost:
Governance Board: Hire an executive director and staff for p...
Governance Board: Evaluate how to work with Oregon's nine fe...
Empirical Diagnostics
Each figure carries its evidence class: fitted on data, an estimate, or a rule we wrote.
Network Fragility
Which promises the rest depend on most: see High-Leverage Promises above, ranked by what would slip if each one broke.
Cascade Calibration
Most dependency edges run through unverified promises — cascade predictions rely on at-risk flagging more than on structural propagation.
Outcome projection
Outcome projection: Using a three-state transition model — fitted on 11,994 MONA conditions for the composting and transitional regimes; the computing and pressure parameters are estimates not yet validated on a cohort — 1 promise in this network is in composting dynamics (a promise left unchecked gets harder to resolve) and 0 are in computing dynamics (observation-driven resolution) . 1 promise is at risk of over-review — it is being reviewed more often than it can change .
Want your commitments mapped like this?
We build interactive promise graphs for organizations, advocates, and policy teams.